+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

The physical properties of packable and conventional posterior resin-based composites: a comparison



The physical properties of packable and conventional posterior resin-based composites: a comparison



Journal of the American Dental Association 131(11): 1610-1615



The authors compared the physical properties of three packable hybrid resin-based composites with those of a conventional hybrid and a microfill composite material advocated for use as posterior restorative materials. They evaluated diametral tensile strength, or DTS; compressive strength, or CS; flexural strength, or FS; and depth of cure, or DC. The authors studied the following resin-based restorative materials: three packable composites, Alert Condensable Composite (Jeneric Pentron), SureFil High Density Posterior Restorative (Dentsply Caulk) and Solitaire (Heraeus Kulzer); one conventional hybrid composite, TPH Spectrum (Dentsply Caulk); and one microfill, Heliomolar Radiopaque (Ivoclar-Vivadent). The authors evaluated DTS, CS, FS and DC, according to American National Standards Institute criteria. They made scanning electron micrographs of the packable resin-based composites. Results demonstrated that the conventional hybrid, TPH Spectrum, had significantly greater DTS and FS than other resin-based composites. Alert and SureFil had comparable DTS and FS, which were significantly greater than Heliomolar's DTS and FS. Solitaire had significantly lower DTS and FS than all other resin-based composites. SureFil had the highest CS, followed by TPH Spectrum, Solitaire and Alert, which were comparable and had significantly greater CS than Heliomolar. TPH Spectrum and Alert had significantly greater DC than all other resin-based composites, followed in decreasing order by SureFil, Solitaire and Heliomolar. While the packable composites tested in this study had physical properties superior to those of the microfill composite, they were no better suited for use as a posterior restorative material than was the conventional hybrid resin-based composite. Packable composites may be easier for clinicians to handle than conventional resin-based composites; however, their physical properties were not superior to those of the conventional small-particle hybrid resin-based composite. In addition, these materials may have the clinical drawback of increased wear and surface roughness that was seen with early, large-particle composite restorative materials.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 047699099

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 11103581

DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2000.0091


Related references

Clinical evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid posterior resin-based composites: results at 3.5 years. Journal of the American Dental Association 136(11): 1533-1540, 2005

Clinical evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid resin-based composites for posterior restorations in permanent teeth: results at 12 months. Journal of the American Dental Association 134(12): 1581-1589, 2003

The suitability of packable resin-based composites for posterior restorations. Journal of the American Dental Association 132(5): 639-645, 2001

Microleakage of posterior packable resin composites with and without flowable liners. Operative Dentistry 26(3): 302-307, 2001

Effect of restoration size on the clinical performance of posterior "packable" resin composites over 18 months. Operative Dentistry 32(3): 212-216, 2007

Influence of flowable liner and margin location on microleakage of conventional and packable class II resin composites. Operative Dentistry 30(1): 32-38, 2005

Surface antibacterial properties of packable resin composites: part I. Quintessence International 35(3): 189-193, 2004

Wettability of some packable resin-based composites. An in vitro study. European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry 12(3): 121-124, 2004

The leakage of Class II cavities restored with packable resin-based composites. Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice 4(4): 1-11, 2003

Comparison of chemical composition of packable resin composites by scanning electron microscopy. Journal of Applied Oral Science 13(1): 67-71, 2005

Evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid resin composites in Class I restorations: three-year results of a randomized, double-blind and controlled clinical trial. Operative Dentistry 35(1): 11-19, 2010

The effect of six polishing systems on the surface roughness of two packable resin-based composites. American Journal of Dentistry 15(3): 193-197, 2002

Two-year clinical evaluation of packable and nanostructured resin-based composites placed with two techniques. Journal of the American Dental Association 141(3): 319-329, 2010

Marginal integrity of different resin-based composites for posterior teeth: an in vitro dye-penetration study on eight resin-composite and compomer-/adhesive combinations with a particular look at the additional use of flow-composites. Dental Materials 18(4): 351-358, 2002

Microleakage and adaptation of Class II packable resin-based composites using incremental or bulk filling techniques. American Journal of Dentistry 13(4): 205-208, 2000