Comparison of Flexural Strength and Wear of Injectable, Flowable and Paste Composite Resins

(1) Objectives: This study investigated and compared the wear and flexural strength of two highly filled (injectable), one flowable and one paste composite. (2) Methods: Two highly filled flowable composites (G-aenial Universal Injectable and Beautifil Plus F00), a paste composite (Empress Direct) and a conventional flowable (Tetric EvoFlow) were tested. A two-body wear test was carried out using 10 disc-shaped samples from each group, which were subjected to 200,000 wear machine cycles to simulate wear, followed by Scanning Electron Microscope analysis. Flexural strength was tested using a three-point bend test using 15 beam samples for each of the four groups. Values were statistically compared using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for flexural strength and a Kruskal-Wallis test for wear. (3) Results: The median volume loss for G-aenial Universal Injectable and Beautifil Plus F00 was statistically lower than that of both Empress Direct and Tetric EvoFlow. For flexural strength the two highly filled flowable composites both exhibited statistically higher mean flexural strength values compared to Empress Direct (<i>p</i> < 0.004) and Tetric Evoflow (<i>p</i> < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in the values of wear and flexural strength between the two highly filled flowable composites. (4) Conclusions/significance: Highly filled flowable composite resins with nano filler particles outperformed a conventional flowable and a paste composite resin in terms of wear resistance and flexural strength, and may be suitable to use in occlusal, load-bearing areas.