Properties of a Dental Resin Composite with a Spherical Inorganic Filler

Abstract

Of the materials tested in this study, the spherical filler composite (Estelite Σ) had similar properties as the nano-composite (Filtek Supreme). Thus, Estelite Σ can be used in anterior regions and restricted posterior restorations. All the materials had a similar shrinkage pattern, in that about 99% of the shrinkage occurred prior to 24 hours; thus, for direct resin composite restorations, a strong initial bonding strength with bonding agent would be necessary. Estelite performed similarly to nano-composite and microhybrid composites in mechanical properties and generalized wear resistance, while Estelite and Supreme had the lowest PS among the materials tested. The 2 microhybrid materials had similar properties, while the 2 microfilled composites were different for most properties tested. Overall, the microfilled composites had lower strength than the other composites except

Surface roughness and morphology of resin composites polished with two-step polishing systems

“…Microhybrids might have been expected to show higher Ra values because of their larger filler sizes (EHD 0.6 µm; GAE 16-17 µm, 16 nm, 850 nm) than the suprananofilled composites (0.2 µm). In addition, the smaller, the specific surface areas of spherical fillers require less resin matrix to wet them and thus allow for higher filler loading 14) in EO and EQ than EHD and GAE; however, comparison between these two groups showed no material and polishing system dependent effect.…”

“…This difference may lead to equal abrasion of the filler particles with the resin matrix, leaving a smooth surface 30) . On the other hand, diamond is harder than Al2O3; therefore, it may cause deeper scratches on the composite's surfaces, resulting in higher roughness 14) . This result is consistent with the SEM and AFM observations of the supra-nanofilled composites EO (Figs.…”

“…In several in vitro studies, multi-step aluminum-oxide discs exhibited the smoothest surfaces [13][14][15][16] ; however, due to their geometry, the anatomically contoured surfaces of composite restorations are difficult to polish 12) . In contrast, oneand two-step polishing systems that use elastomeric or rubberized polishers in various shapes, sizes and dimensions come into direct contact with the restoration surface and complement the access limitations of the aluminum-oxide discs.…”

A Five-Year Clinical Evaluation of Direct Nanofilled and Indirect Composite Resin Restorations in Posterior Teeth

“…Microfilled composites present nearly 37% to 40% volume filler loading, whereas nanofilled composites have approximately 60% volume filler loading. 11 Regarding esthetics, strength, and durability, dental nanocomposites show high translucency, high polish, and polish retention, similar to the properties of microfilled composites, while maintaining physical properties and wear resistance equivalent to those of several hybrid composites. Therefore, by virtue of the strength and esthetic properties of resin-based nanocomposites, clinicians and dental practitioners can use these materials for both anterior and posterior restorations.…”

“…However, microfilled composite resins with low filler loading are not as mechanically resistant as the hybrid resins. 11 For direct composite resins to be considered as an alternative to small-to medium-sized cavities in posterior teeth, 12 various aspects of the patient's occlusion must be examined before surgery, such as the occlusal contacts, the type of restorations in the opposing dentition, the presence of wear facets, and the position of the tooth within the arch. Having considered such factors, favorable or desired esthetic results can be predictably achieved with posterior composite restorations.…”