Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Investigations on mechanical behaviour of dental composites

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 29 April 2009

Abstract

Since a direct comparison of composites efficacy in clinical studies is very difficult, our study aimed to analyse in laboratory tests under standardised and simulated clinical conditions a large variety of commercial composite materials belonging to eight different materials categories. Thus, 72 hybrid, nano-hybrid, micro-filled, packable, ormocer-based and flowable composites, compomers and flowable compomers were compared in terms of their mechanical behaviour. Flexural strength (FS), flexural modulus (FM), diametric tensile (DTS) and compressive strength (CS) were measured after the samples had been stored in water for 24 h at 37°C. Results were statistically analysed using one-way ANOVA with Tukey HSD post hoc test (α = 0.05) as well as partial η 2 statistics. Large varieties between the tested materials within the same material category were found. The hybrid, nano-hybrid, packable and ormocer-based composites do not differ significantly among each other as a material type, reaching the highest FS values. Nano-hybrid composites are characterised by a good FS, the best DTS but a low FM. The lowest mechanical properties achieved the micro-filled hybrids. The flowable composites and compomers showed for all properties comparable result. Both flowable material categories do not differ significantly from the micro-filled composites for the most mechanical properties, showing only a higher DTS. The filler volume was shown to have the highest influence on the measured properties, inducing a maximum FS and FM at a level of 60%, whereas such dependence was not measured for DTS or CS. The influence of the type of material on the mechanical properties was significant but very low, showing the strongest influence on the CS.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Reference

  1. Braga RR Ferracane JL (2004) Alternatives in polymerisation contraction stress management. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 15:176–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ferracane JL (1995) Current trends in dental composites. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 6:302–318

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rueggeberg FA (2002) From vulcanite to vinyl, a history of resins in restorative dentistry. J Prosthet Dent 87:364–379

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Weinmann W, Thalacker C Guggenberger R (2005) Siloranes in dental composites. Dent Mater 21:68–74

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bayne SC, Heymann HO, Swift EL (1994) Update on dental composite restorations. I Am Dent Assoc 125:687–701

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hickel R, Dasch W, Janda R, Tyas M, Anusavice K (1998) New direct restorative materials. FDI Commission Project. Int Dent J 48:3–16

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lutz F, Phillips RW (1983) A classification and evaluation of composite resin systems. J Prosthet Dent 50:480–488

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Willems G, Lambrechts P, Braem M, Celis JP, Vanherle G (1992) A classification of dental composites according to their morphological and mechanical characteristics. Dent Mater 8:310–319

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Epanechnikov VA (1969) Nonparametric estimation of a multivariate probability density. Theory Probab App 14:153–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Sarrett DC (2005) Clinical challenges and the relevance of materials testing for posterior composite restorations. Dent Mater 21:9–20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Brunthaler A, Konig F, Lucas T, Sperr W, Schedle A (2003) Longevity of direct resin composite restorations in posterior teeth. Clin Oral Investig 7:63–70

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. van Dijken JW (2000) Direct resin composite inlays/onlays: an 11 year follow-up. J Dent 28:299–306

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Van Nieuwenhuysen JP, D′Hoore W, Carvalho J, Qvist V (2003) Long-term evaluation of extensive restorations in permanent teeth. J Dent 31:395–405

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lambrechts P, Ameye C, Vanherle G (1982) Conventional and micro-filled composite resins. Part II. Chip fractures. J Prosthet Dent 48:527–538

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Leinfelder KF, McCartha CD, Wisniewski JF (1985) Posterior composite resins. A critical review. J Ala Dent Assoc 69:19–25

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Zantner C, Kielbassa AM, Martus P, Kunzelmann KH (2004) Sliding wear of 19 commercially available composites and compomers. Dent Mater 20:277–285

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ferracane JL (2006) Is the wear of dental composites still a clinical concern? Is there still a need for in vitro wear simulating devices. Dent Mater 22:689–692

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Curtis AR, Shortall AC, Marquis PM, Palin WM (2008) Water uptake and strength characteristics of a nano-filled resin-based composite. J Dent 36:186–193

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Manhart J, Kunzelmann KH, Chen HY, Hickel R (2000) Mechanical properties and wear behaviour of light-cured packable composite resins. Dent Mater 16:33–40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Choi KK, Ferracane JL, Hilton TJ, Charlton D (2000) Properties of packable dental composites. J Esthet Dent 12:216–226

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Knobloch LA, Kerby RE, Seghi R, Berlin JS, Clelland N (2002) Fracture toughness of packable and conventional composite materials. J Prosthet Dent 88:307–313

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Klein F, Keller AK, Staehle HJ, Dorfer CE (2002) Proximal contact formation with different restorative materials and techniques. Am J Dent 15:232–235

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Asscherickx K, Simon S, Abe Y, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G (2001) Do condensable composites help to achieve better proximal contacts. Dent Mater 17:533–541

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ernst CP, Buhtz C, Rissing C, Willershausen B (2002) Clinical performance of resin composite restorations after 2 years. Compend Contin Educ Dent 23:7117–7720

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ernst CP, Canbek K, Aksogan K, Willershausen B (2003) Two-year clinical performance of a packable posterior composite with and without a flowable composite liner. Clin Oral Investig 7:129–134

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lopes LG, Cefaly DF, Franco EB, Mondelli RF, Lauris JR, Navarro MF (2003) Clinical evaluation of two “packable” posterior composite resins: two-year results. Clin Oral Investig 7:123–128

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Poon EC, Smales RJ, Yip KH (2005) Clinical evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid posterior resin-based composites: results at 3.5 years. J Am Dent Assoc 136:1533–1540

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Wolter H, Storch W, Ott H (1994) New inorganic/organic copolymers (ORMOCER®S) for dental applications. Mat ResSoc Symp Proc 346:143–149

    Google Scholar 

  29. Tagtekin DA, Yanikoglu FC, Bozkurt FO, Kologlu B, Sur H (2004) Selected characteristics of an Ormocer and a conventional hybrid resin composite. Dent Mater 20:487–497

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Yap AU, Tan CH, Chung SM (2004) Wear behaviour of new composite restoratives. Oper Dent 29:269–274

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Cattani-Lorente M, Bouillaguet S, Godin CH, Meyer JM (2001) Polymerization shrinkage of Ormocer based dental restorative composites. Eur Cell Mater 1:25–26

    Google Scholar 

  32. Moszner N, Gianasmidis A, Klapdohr S, Fischer UK, Rheinberger V (2008) Sol-gel materials 2. Light-curing dental composites based on ormocers of cross-linking alkoxysilane methacrylates and further nano-components. Dent Mater 24:851–856

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. el Kalla IH, Garcia-Godoy F (2000) Compomers adaptation to class I and V cavities in permanent teeth. ASDC J Dent Child 67(8):29–36

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Yap AU, Chung SM, Chow WS, Tsai KT, Lim CT (2004) Fracture resistance of compomer and composite restoratives. Oper Dent 29:29–34

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Ferracane JL, Antonio RC, Matsumoto H (1987) Variables affecting the fracture toughness of dental composites. J Dent Res 66:1140–1145

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Wucher M, Grobler SR, Senekal PJ (2002) A 3-year clinical evaluation of a compomer, a composite and a compomer/composite (sandwich) in class II restorations. Am J Dent 15:274–278

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Roeters JJ, Frankenmolen F, Burgersdijk RC, Peters TC (1998) Clinical evaluation of Dyract in primary molars: 3-year results. Am J Dent 11:143–148

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Benz C, Hickel R (2005) 4-year evaluation of a compomer in class II restorations. Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 60:200–202

    Google Scholar 

  39. Huth KC, Manhart J, Selbertinger A, Paschos E, Kaaden C, Kunzelmann KH, Hickel R (2004) 4-year clinical performance and survival analysis of Class I and II compomer restorations in permanent teeth. Am J Dent 17:51–55

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Chen HY, Manhart J, Kunzelmann KH, Hickel R (2003) Polymerization contraction stress in light-cured compomer restorative materials. Dent Mater 19:597–602

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Htang A, Ohsawa M, Matsumoto H (1995) Fatigue resistance of composite restorations: effect of filler content. Dent Mater 11:7–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Dental School, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Goethestr. 70, 80336, Munich, Germany

    Nicoleta Ilie & Reinhard Hickel

Authors
  1. Nicoleta Ilie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Reinhard Hickel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicoleta Ilie.

Additional information

An erratum to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-009-0274-4

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ilie, N., Hickel, R. Investigations on mechanical behaviour of dental composites. Clin Oral Invest 13, 427–438 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-009-0258-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-009-0258-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation