Mechanical properties and wear behavior of light-cured packable composite resins

Manhart, Juergen; Kunzelmann, Karl; Chen, H.Y; Hickel, Reinhard

doi:10.1016/s0109-5641(99)00082-2

Cited by 289 publications

(245 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

203

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous studies noted that variables such as size, shape, distribution, and content per volume/weight of the filler particles in the matrix influence the mechanical strength, hardness, and elastic modulus of resin composites. [12][13][14] In the present study, the flexural strength test allowed the authors to conclude that fracture resistance was not related to the modulus and, moreover, was not dependent on the resin matrix type.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 56%

Fracture resistance of teeth restored with different resin-based restorative systems

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the fracture resistance of teeth restored with resin composite. Forty-eight maxillary premolar teeth were chosen and randomly divided to six groups: G1 (control): sound teeth; G2: MOD preparation, unrestored; G3: MOD + Adper Single Bond 2 / P60; G4: MOD + Adper Easy One / P60; G5: MOD + P90 restorative system; G6: MOD + Adper Easy One / P90 Bond / P90. Specimens were subjected to compressive axial loading (0.5 mm/min). Flexural strength and the modulus of elasticity were also tested (n = 7). The only statistical equivalence with sound teeth was noted for G3 (p < 0.05). Flexural strength and the modulus of elasticity varied among the composites tested (n = 10). The reestablishment of the resistance to fracture in premolars subjected to Class II MOD preparations is restorative-system-dependent. The silorane restorative system is not able to recover the resistance to fracture.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 56%

Fracture resistance of teeth restored with different resin-based restorative systems

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite their success in anterior teeth, direct composite restorations have exhibited more leakage 1 and post-operative sentitivity 2 when applied to posterior teeth, due to polymerization shrinkage. In addition, there are some problems in obtaining adequate proximal contact.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cervical Microleakage in MOD Restorations: In Vitro Comparison of Indirect and Direct Composite

Duquia¹,

Osinaga²,

Demarco³

et al. 2006

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Clinical RelevanceOne of the advantages reported for indirect composite restorations is the reduction of polymerization shrinkage, which could produce better marginal sealing. Although sealing of cervical enamel margins was slightly better for the indirect systems used, no difference between indirect and direct restorations was found for cervical margins in cementum/dentin. SUMMARYThis study compared microleakage between indirect composite inlays and direct composite restorations. Forty-eight standard inlay MOD cavities, with cervical margins located either in enamel or dentin, were prepared in extracted human third molars. The specimens were randomly divided into 3 groups (n=16). In the control group, the cavities were restored with the composite Filtek Z250 (3M ESPE). For the experimental groups, indirect restorations were made with the Artglass (Heraeus-Kulzer) or Belleglass HP (Kerr Laboratories) systems and cemented with the dual curing cement RelyX ARC (3M ESPE). The adhesive system Single Bond (3M ESPE) was applied on all groups. The specimens were submitted to thermolcycling, coated with nail varnish, then immersed in 2% basic fuchsine aqueous solution for 24 hours. The teeth were then sectioned and leakage scores were evaluated (40x), based on a standard ranking. Data were submitted to statistical analysis (Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests) with a 95% confidence level. No statistical difference was found between substrates (p=0.595), and the materials performed similarly in dentin (p=0.482). Direct restorations showed higher leakage than indirect restorations at the enamel margins (p=0.004). Within the limitations of this experimental design, overall leakage was similar between both substrates, while the indirect systems provided a better sealing than direct composites only in enamel.

show abstract

“…They could not be carved, and their surfaces were rougher than minifilled conventional hybrid composites. [17][18] Condensable or packable resin- based composites do not feel like amalgam; when condensed, they can deform a matrix band when inserted with an instrument and allow for tight proximal contact. 2,[19][20][21] These materials have 60% to 70% filler volume.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Six-year Clinical Evaluation of Packable Composite Restorations

Kiremitçi¹,

Alpaslan²,

Gürgan³

2009

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Kiremitci • T Alpaslan • S Gurgan Clinical RelevanceAs a posterior composite, Filtek P60 exhibited very good clinical performance in Class II cavities for six years. Methods: A total of 47 restorations were placed in the Class II cavity preparations (27 premolars and 20 molars) of 33 patients (22 female/11 male; mean age 34) by the same operator. The restorations were evaluated by two examiners at baseline and 1, 2, 3 and 6 years according to the method developed by Ryge, which also is known as the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. The following characteristics were observed: marginal adaptation, anatomical form, surface texture, marginal discoloration, surface staining, post-operative sensitivity and secondary caries. The Chi-square and Wilcoxon signed rank test with Bonferroni adjustment were used for statistical analysis (p=0.05).Results: All the restorations received Alpha scores at baseline assessment, except for one restoration, which showed post-operative sensitivity. At the three-year recall examination, two patients, with a total of three restorations, were not included. From baseline to three years, only two of the 44 restorations changed from Alpha to Conclusions: The clinical performance of the posterior composite restorations that were evaluated was acceptable after six years of service.

show abstract

Mechanical properties and wear behavior of light-cured packable composite resins

Cited by 289 publications

References 34 publications

Fracture resistance of teeth restored with different resin-based restorative systems

Fracture resistance of teeth restored with different resin-based restorative systems

Cervical Microleakage in MOD Restorations: In Vitro Comparison of Indirect and Direct Composite

Six-year Clinical Evaluation of Packable Composite Restorations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About