Table 2.
Characteristics of the included studies.
| Author, year | Restorative composites testeda | n | Study unit | Properties evaluatedb | Main Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Algamaiah et al. (2020) (26) | PowerFill, PowerFlow, EvoCeram BF and EvoFlow BF | 36 | Cylindrical composite samples (4 × 1 or 4 mm) | DC and PK | PowerFill and PowerFlow composites exhibited faster conversion than the controls. PK and the rate of polymerization were influenced by specimen thickness and material viscosity. |
| Algamaiah et al. (2021) (27) | PowerFill, PowerFlow, EvoCeram BF and EvoFlow BF | 40 | Disc-shaped composite samples (8 × 1 mm) | PS and SS | PowerFill showed reduced PS and comparable SS to EvoCeram BF. PowerFlow showed significantly higher SS with the 3s protocol. |
| Alshafi et al. (2023) (28) | Filtek One BF, EvoCeram BF, PowerFill, SonicFill and Filtek Supreme Ultra | 50 | Disc-shaped composite samples (8 × 1 mm) | VW | PowerFill had a significantly higher wear volume than the other composite resins. |
| Can et al. (2022) (29) | VisCalor, PowerFill, Fill Up and G-aenial | 36 | Disc-shaped composite samples (4 × 6 mm) | ΔE00 and VH | All BF composites showed clinically unacceptable ΔE00. There was no difference the bottom VH values of PowerFill. |
| Erçin et al. (2023) (30) | Omnichroma and PowerFlow | 90 | Human premolar teeth embedded in plaster models | ΔE00 | The most discoloration was observed in coffee solutions for PowerFlow. |
| Frank et al. (2023) (31) | PowerFill and Prime | 40 | Class II cavities were prepared in primary human molars | MI | PowerFill achieves similar MI when light-cured with either high-irradiance or regular light-curing modes and achieves better MI than the conventional composite. |
| Garoushi et al. (2021) (32) | PowerFill and Essencia | 122 | Mechanical Tests: 3-point bending sticks of composites (2 × 2 × 25 mm); DBC, WSS (1.5 × 4.5 mm); MH (2 and 4 mm); TBD: Composite samples prepared in resin block (20 × 10 × 2 mm); LT: Cylindrical composite samples (1, 2, 3, 4 mm) | FT, WSS, DBC, MH, LT and TDB | The high-intensity light curing protocol (3s) did not endanger the tested properties of PowerFill, except for the surface MH and water solubility. The LT through PowerFill was higher than the conventional composite. |
| Hayashi et al. (2020) (5) | PowerFill, PowerFlow, EvoCeram BF and EvoFlow BF | 32 | ID: Cylindrical cavities prepared in composite resin blocks (3 × 4 mm); DC: Disc-shaped composite samples (3 × 5 mm) | ID and DC | PowerFlow showed an intact internal structure and great DC ratio on through the depth, despite a slightly lower DC at the top of the specimen. PowerFill has improved its structural integrity and DC. |
| Ilie,Watts. (2020) (12) | PowerFill and EvoCeram BF | 32 | DC: Cylindrical composite samples (3 × 2 or 4 mm); FS, FM: (2 × 2 × 18 mm); VH, DOC: (6 × 10 mm) | FS, FM, DC, VH and DOC | The PowerFill was shown to induce comparable properties to those of a conventional BF composite. Differences were evidenced only in faster initial PK in the RAFT system. Small differences in VH and FM were related. |
| Ilie, Diegelmann. (2021) (14) | PowerFill | 24 | Cylindrical composite samples (4 × 5 mm) | CT, QS and SVI | The 3s polymerization protocol induced no CT and an equivalent QS and viscoelastic mechanical behavior as with conventional curing protocols in PowerFill. |
| Jakupovic et al. (2023) (33) | Evetric, Prime, EvoFlow, PowerFill and PowerFlow | 40 | Cylindrical composite samples; (6 mm × 2 or 4 mm) | MH | The MH of RBCs is more dependent on material composition than on light-curing protocol. |
| Klaric et al. (2021) (34) | Filtek One BF, PowerFill, PowerFlow, SDR Plus BF Flow and Z250 | 30 | Cylindrical composite samples (9 × 2 mm) | WSS | The 3s polymerization protocol increased the solubility of all materials. PowerFlow exhibited the lowest WSS values compared to other materials. |
| Labrie et al. (2022) (35) | PowerFill, Aura BF and Heliomolar | 108 | Cylindrical composite samples (0.2, 2 and 4 mm thick) | DC and VISC | PowerFill followed exposure reciprocity between irradiance levels of 500 to 3000 mW/cm2, and has a moderate viscosity. |
| Lempel et al. (2023) [36] | PowerFill and Filtek One BF | 30 | Cylindrical composite samples (6 × 4 mm) | DC, ME, PS and PO | High-irradiance rapid 3-s curing of PowerFill resulted in inferior results for PS and PO compared to a conventional composite. |
| Marovic et al. (2021) (37) | PowerFill, PowerFlow, Filtek One BF and SDR Plus BF Flow | 40 | FS and FM: Cylindrical composite samples (16 × 2 × 2 mm); DC: (2 or 4 mm) | FS, FM, DC and AA | Mechanical properties deteriorated by increasing depth and aging. 3s polymerization protocol was sufficient for PowerFill, however, it negatively affected FM of materials, whereas its influence on FS and DC was material dependent. |
| Maucoski et al. (2023) (38) | Filtek One BF, Filtek BF Flow, PowerFill and PowerFlow | 360 | Non-retentive Class I and V cavities prepared in human molar | TA | Short 1 to 3s exposures produced acceptable temperature rises, regardless of the composite. |
| Maucoski et al. (2023) (39) | Filtek One BF, PowerFill, Filtek BF Flow and PowerFlow | 576 | Cylindrical composite samples DC: (4 × 4 mm); VH: (2 × 2 mm) | DC and VH | The shorter exposure times delivered lower DC and VH values. PowerFill and PowerFlow was less affected than conventional composites when they received a high irradiance for a short time. |
| Negovetic et al. (2023) (40) | Filtek One BF, PowerFill and PowerFlow | 24 | Cylindrical composite samples (3 × 4 mm) | PK and DC | DC values of sculptable composites were significantly higher to the flowable composites. |
| Par et al. (2020) (21) | EvoFlow BF, PowerFlow, X-tra Base, PowerFill, Filtek One BF, EvoCeram BF and Ceram.X | 56 | Disc-shaped composite samples (1.5 mm thick) | LS, SF, and DC | The flowable composites showed significantly higher LS and SF compared to sculptable composites. The ultra-fast light curing composites showed shrinkage parameters comparable to other composites. |
| Par et al. (2020) (20) | EvoFlow BF, PowerFlow, X-tra Base, PowerFill, Filtek One BF, EvoCeram BF and Ceram.X | 56 | Cylindrical composite samples (6 × 2 or 4 mm) | MH | Flowable composites showed high-intensity curing diminished MH and improving crosslinking density. In sculptable composites, the MH was unaffected, crosslinking density was reduced. |
| Par et al. (2021) (40) | PowerFlow, X-tra Base, PowerFill and Filtek One BF | 80 | Class V cavities prepared on buccal surfaces of human molars | MI | The flowable composites light-curing using the high-intensity protocol showed a significantly inferior MI, it may compromise the tooth-restoration interface. |
| Par et al. (2022) (17) | SureFil, Filtek One BF, PowerFill, PowerFlow, Filtek Supreme Flow and EvoFlow Mosaic, Herculite, Filtek | 108 | Cylindrical composite samples (6 × 1.5 mm) | PK, LS and SS | PowerFill and PowerFlow differed from the other investigated materials with regard to PK, while showing comparable behavior in terms of LS and SS. |
| Rocha et al. (2022) (41) | Supreme Ultra, EvoCeram, Admira F, Estelite Q, Mosaic- EN, SDR flow+, PowerFlow and X-tra Fil | 150 | Cylindrical composite samples (6 × 10 mm) | DOC | PowerFlow reached a similar DOC (values above the 4 mm threshold), regardless of the irradiation protocol used. |
| Steffen et al. (2022) (42) | PowerFill, PowerFlow, Filtek One BF and SDR Flow + | 64 | Extracted human molars were ground to dentin | μTBS | The use of 3 s polymerization protocol has no negative influence on the μTBS of the investigated high-viscosity BF composites. However, it may reduce the μTBS of PowerFlow. |
| Watts, Algamaiah. (2020) (43) | PowerFill and PowerFlow, EvoCeram BF and EvoFlow BF | 48 | Cylindrical composite samples (4 × 4 mm) | SVI | PowerFill and PowerFlow demonstrated an acceptable level of surface integrity and viscoelastic characteristics, evidencing their suitability for clinical application. |
| Wang et al. (2021) (13) | Filtek BF, PowerFill, Beautiful BF and Admira Fusion-Xtra | 100 | Cylindrical composite samples (5 × 4, 3, 2 or 1 mm) | TA, MH and DC | The high-intensity protocol caused the highest peak temperature irrespective of the composite types. The highest peak temperature was from PowerFill. There was no significant difference in MH. PowerFill showed the highest DC. |
| Yang et al. (2021) (44) | Filtek BF, PowerFill, Beautiful BF and Admira Fusion-Xtra | 60 | Prepared cavities in the first human molar at 4 measurement locations: (0, 2, and 4 mm from the top and 1 mm into dentin) | TA | Regardless of light-curing protocols, PowerFill and PowerFlow took the shortest time to reach the maximum temperature. The ultra-fast protocol showed generally comparable temperature rise to the standard protocol. |
| Miranda et al. (2024) (45) | Filtek BF Flow and Tetric PowerFlow | 40 | Dentin discs from human molars, included in artificial pulp chambers | TA, CV | The 3s rapid high-intensity light-curing protocol of bulk-fill composite resins caused a temperature increase greater than 10s and showed cell viability similar and comparable to the standard protocol. |