Objective: New composites, called packable or condensable composites, are being promoted as amalgam alternatives. The purposes of this review article are to identify these products, define new terminology associated with them, summarize the advertised properties for the materials, discuss the ideal properties for packable composites, review the properties of the major products, and critically evaluate the proposed handling procedures for these materials.
Review:The term packable is preferable to condensable for describing this new class of materials. All materials should be considered amalgam alternatives, not amalgam substitutes. The compositions and physical properties reported by manufacturers reveal that none of the materials represents a remarkable improvement over the properties of more traditional universal composites. The designs of Solitaire (Heraeus Kulzer), ALERT (Jeneric-Pentron), and SureFil (Dentsply/Caulk) are discussed in detail. The distinguishing characteristics of all packable compositions are less stickiness or stiffer viscosity than conventional composites, which allow them to be placed in a manner that somewhat resembles amalgam placement.
Conclusions:Packable composites may allow more convenient placement in posterior sites and may offer some technique advantages over conventional composites. However, there is no evidence that their clinical properties are consistently better than those of conventional universal composites.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCEPackable composites may be selected as alternatives to amalgam or conventional universal composites, but they are not equal to or better than dental amalgam in all respects. Also, in most cases, mechanical properties of packable composites are not substantially'better than those of most conventional universal composites.( J Esthet Dent 1 1:234-249,1999) hortly after the original introduction of dental composites in the mid-1 960s,' considerable discussion arose concerning composite as a potential amalgam substitute. Influenced by similarities in certain mechanical characteristics, some secondary caries, and fracture a b a n d~n e d .~?~ clinicians began employing the new composite materials for Class I and I1 cavity restorations. Unfortunately, the results were disastrous.2 Problems with inadequate wear resistance, postoperative sensitivity, produced a significant number of short-term failures. Within 12 to 18 months, the level of clinical failure was so overwhelming that the idea of using composites as an amalgam substitute was all but S
