SMITE Flow vs Filtek vs Tetric
The Real Numbers
Not marketing. Not opinions. A formal ISO 4049:2019 lab study on flexural strength — the most important mechanical property of any composite resin.
Flexural Strength Comparison
Three-point bending test per ISO 4049:2019. Ten specimens per group. Conducted at Dental Research Center, Egypt.
Flexural Strength Bar Chart
ISO 4049:2019 three-point bending test. All values in MPa. The dashed line marks the ISO minimum (80 MPa).
📊 Statistical Analysis (One-Way ANOVA)
Feature-by-Feature Table
Beyond flexural strength — a complete side-by-side comparison of all clinically relevant factors.
| Parameter | 💎 SMITE Flow™ | Filtek Supreme Ultra | Tetric EvoFlow |
|---|---|---|---|
| Flexural Strength ISO 4049:2019, mean ± SD |
137.68 ± 6.20 MPa | 138.53 ± 5.80 MPa | 114.22 ± 5.40 MPa |
| vs SMITE Flow (p-value) Tukey post-hoc test |
Reference | p=0.963 (NS) | p<0.001 (**) |
| Filler Type | Barium Glass (silanated) | Zirconia/Silica Nanofiller | BaAlFSi glass + prepolymers |
| Filler Load (%wt) | 75% | ~72% (nanofilled) | ~53% (shrink-fit tech) |
| Particle Size | 2 μm | 5–75 nm (nano cluster) | 550 nm (IVS tech) |
| Radiopacity | ✓ >2mm Al | ✓ Radiopaque | ✓ Radiopaque |
| ISO 4049 Compliance | ✓ Certified | ✓ Certified | ✓ Certified |
| Color Stability | ✓ Passed | ✓ Excellent | ✓ Good |
| Origin | 🇪🇬 Made in Egypt | 🇺🇸 Made in USA | 🇱🇮 Made in Liechtenstein |
How the Study Was Conducted
Full transparency on the testing protocol. All data comes from a formal study using ISO 4049:2019 standard methodology.
What Dentists Ask
Yes — statistically identical. In the ISO 4049:2019 study, SMITE Flow achieved 137.68 MPa ± 6.20 vs Filtek's 138.53 MPa ± 5.80. The difference of 0.85 MPa was not statistically significant (p=0.963 by Tukey HSD post-hoc test). Clinically, this means the two perform equivalently under bending stress.
Tetric EvoFlow uses Ivoclar's Shrinkage Stress Reducer (SHR) technology which incorporates prepolymerized fillers specifically to reduce polymerization shrinkage stress. This design trade-off results in lower overall filler content (~53% vs SMITE's 75%), which reduces the flexural strength (114.22 MPa) while improving marginal adaptation. Tetric optimizes for shrinkage, SMITE Flow and Filtek optimize for strength.
Based on the flexural strength data, yes. Both products meet and substantially exceed ISO 4049:2019 requirements and perform statistically equivalently. As with any material change, we recommend trialing SMITE Flow on a few cases first to familiarize yourself with handling characteristics, which may differ slightly between products.
The study was conducted at the Dental Research Center, Egypt under Dr. Emad Abdelfatah Mohammed using ISO 4049:2019 standard methodology with 10 specimens per group and standard statistical analysis (ANOVA + Tukey). The full data set with specimen-level results is available from SMITE DENT.