Properties of packable dental composites

Kyoung Kyu Choi, Jack Ferracane, Thomas (Tom) Hilton, David Charlton

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

85 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The introduction of many new packable composites suggests that these products are rapidly gaining popularity. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the in vitro properties of a variety of packable composites and to determine if significant enhancements in physical and mechanical properties have been achieved for these materials compared with two popular nonpackable posterior composites. For the five packable and two regular composites tested (ALERT, Pyramid-Dentin, Pyramid-Enamel, Solitaire, SureFil, Heliomolar, and Z100), the values for fracture toughness, flexure strength, flexure modulus, hardness, and volumetric polymerization shrinkage were determined. In general, although the packable composites were of heavier consistency, they had mechanical properties that were intermediate to (ALERT, Pyramid, and SureFil) or lower than (Solitaire) those of the nonpackable materials. These results could have been predicted based on the similar methacrylate resin chemistry and filler volumes of the various composites. No composite had adequate depth-of-cure when tested in increments greater than 2 mm thick. Polymerization contraction of the packable composites was similar to or higher than that of the nonpackable composites. In addition, the radiopacity of at least one material, Solitaire, was not considered to be adequate (less than 2 mm of aluminum). The results of this study suggest that these packable composites are unlikely to offer improved clinical performance over well-placed nonpackable composites.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)216-226
Number of pages11
JournalJournal of Esthetic Dentistry (Canada)
Volume12
Issue number4
StatePublished - 2000

Fingerprint

Polymerization
Tooth
Methacrylates
Hardness
Aluminum
Heliomolar
Pyramid Packable Composite
In Vitro Techniques

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry (miscellaneous)

Cite this

Properties of packable dental composites. / Choi, Kyoung Kyu; Ferracane, Jack; Hilton, Thomas (Tom); Charlton, David.

In: Journal of Esthetic Dentistry (Canada), Vol. 12, No. 4, 2000, p. 216-226.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Choi, Kyoung Kyu ; Ferracane, Jack ; Hilton, Thomas (Tom) ; Charlton, David. / Properties of packable dental composites. In: Journal of Esthetic Dentistry (Canada). 2000 ; Vol. 12, No. 4. pp. 216-226.
@article{d1738fa2f6a844569d32d338b980bad5,
title = "Properties of packable dental composites",
abstract = "The introduction of many new packable composites suggests that these products are rapidly gaining popularity. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the in vitro properties of a variety of packable composites and to determine if significant enhancements in physical and mechanical properties have been achieved for these materials compared with two popular nonpackable posterior composites. For the five packable and two regular composites tested (ALERT, Pyramid-Dentin, Pyramid-Enamel, Solitaire, SureFil, Heliomolar, and Z100), the values for fracture toughness, flexure strength, flexure modulus, hardness, and volumetric polymerization shrinkage were determined. In general, although the packable composites were of heavier consistency, they had mechanical properties that were intermediate to (ALERT, Pyramid, and SureFil) or lower than (Solitaire) those of the nonpackable materials. These results could have been predicted based on the similar methacrylate resin chemistry and filler volumes of the various composites. No composite had adequate depth-of-cure when tested in increments greater than 2 mm thick. Polymerization contraction of the packable composites was similar to or higher than that of the nonpackable composites. In addition, the radiopacity of at least one material, Solitaire, was not considered to be adequate (less than 2 mm of aluminum). The results of this study suggest that these packable composites are unlikely to offer improved clinical performance over well-placed nonpackable composites.",
author = "Choi, {Kyoung Kyu} and Jack Ferracane and Hilton, {Thomas (Tom)} and David Charlton",
year = "2000",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "12",
pages = "216--226",
journal = "Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry",
issn = "1496-4155",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Properties of packable dental composites

AU - Choi, Kyoung Kyu

AU - Ferracane, Jack

AU - Hilton, Thomas (Tom)

AU - Charlton, David

PY - 2000

Y1 - 2000

N2 - The introduction of many new packable composites suggests that these products are rapidly gaining popularity. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the in vitro properties of a variety of packable composites and to determine if significant enhancements in physical and mechanical properties have been achieved for these materials compared with two popular nonpackable posterior composites. For the five packable and two regular composites tested (ALERT, Pyramid-Dentin, Pyramid-Enamel, Solitaire, SureFil, Heliomolar, and Z100), the values for fracture toughness, flexure strength, flexure modulus, hardness, and volumetric polymerization shrinkage were determined. In general, although the packable composites were of heavier consistency, they had mechanical properties that were intermediate to (ALERT, Pyramid, and SureFil) or lower than (Solitaire) those of the nonpackable materials. These results could have been predicted based on the similar methacrylate resin chemistry and filler volumes of the various composites. No composite had adequate depth-of-cure when tested in increments greater than 2 mm thick. Polymerization contraction of the packable composites was similar to or higher than that of the nonpackable composites. In addition, the radiopacity of at least one material, Solitaire, was not considered to be adequate (less than 2 mm of aluminum). The results of this study suggest that these packable composites are unlikely to offer improved clinical performance over well-placed nonpackable composites.

AB - The introduction of many new packable composites suggests that these products are rapidly gaining popularity. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the in vitro properties of a variety of packable composites and to determine if significant enhancements in physical and mechanical properties have been achieved for these materials compared with two popular nonpackable posterior composites. For the five packable and two regular composites tested (ALERT, Pyramid-Dentin, Pyramid-Enamel, Solitaire, SureFil, Heliomolar, and Z100), the values for fracture toughness, flexure strength, flexure modulus, hardness, and volumetric polymerization shrinkage were determined. In general, although the packable composites were of heavier consistency, they had mechanical properties that were intermediate to (ALERT, Pyramid, and SureFil) or lower than (Solitaire) those of the nonpackable materials. These results could have been predicted based on the similar methacrylate resin chemistry and filler volumes of the various composites. No composite had adequate depth-of-cure when tested in increments greater than 2 mm thick. Polymerization contraction of the packable composites was similar to or higher than that of the nonpackable composites. In addition, the radiopacity of at least one material, Solitaire, was not considered to be adequate (less than 2 mm of aluminum). The results of this study suggest that these packable composites are unlikely to offer improved clinical performance over well-placed nonpackable composites.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0034574920&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0034574920&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 11323865

AN - SCOPUS:0034574920

VL - 12

SP - 216

EP - 226

JO - Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry

JF - Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry

SN - 1496-4155

IS - 4

ER -