COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF PACKABLE COMPOSITES WITH DIFFERENT CAVITY CONFIGURATIONS: AN IN VITRO STUDY
Abstract
Packable composites are commonly used for direct restoration of posterior teeth. Compressive strength is a crucial factor affecting the clinical performance of these materials. Cavity configuration is another critical factor that can affect the compressive strength of packable composites. This in vitro study aimed to compare the compressive strength of different packable composites with different cavity configurations. Sixty resin blocks with cavities of different configurations were restored with four different packable composites: Filtek P60, Tetric N-Ceram, SureFil, and Charisma. Compressive strength was measured using a universal testing machine. The highest compressive strength was observed in the Filtek P60 group, followed by Tetric N-Ceram, Charisma, and SureFil groups. Cavity configuration significantly affected the compressive strength of the packable composites, with cylindrical cavities showing higher compressive strength than Class I and Class II cavities. These findings may help clinicians in selecting appropriate packable composites and cavity configurations for posterior restorations.
Keywords
packable composites, compressive strength, cavity configurationHow to Cite
References
Kumar T, Sanap A, Bhargava K, Aggarwal S, Kaur G, Kunjir K. Comparative evaluation of the bond strength of posterior composite with different cavity configurations and different liners using a two-step etch and rinse adhesive system: In vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2017;20:166-9
Hamoudaa IM, Shehatab SH. Fracture resistance of posterior teeth restored with modern restorative materials. J Biomed Research 2011,25(6):418-424
Leinfelder KF. A conservative approach to placing posterior composite resin restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 1996;127: 743‑ 8
Sano H. Microtensile testing, nanoleakage, and biodegradation of resin‑ dentin bonds. J Dent Res 2006;85:11‑ 4 Castillo MD. Class II composite marginal ridge failure: Conventional vs. proximal box only preparation. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1999;23:131‑ 6
Abuelenain DA, Neel EAA and Al-Dharrab A. Surface and Mechanical Properties of Different Dental Composites. Austin J Dent. 2015;2(2): 1019
Clark D. Introducing the Clark Class I and II restoration. Oral Health 2009. p. 82‑ 91
Yoshida Y, Nagakane K, Fukuda R, Nakayama Y, Okazaki M, Shintani H, et al. Comparative study on adhesive performance of functional monomers. J Dent Res 2004;83:454‑ 8
Moosavi H , Zeynali M and Pour ZH. Fracture Resistance of Premolars Restored by Various Types and Placement Techniques of Resin Composites. Int J of Dent.2012,ArticleID 973641,5pages
Albers HF. Tooth Coloured Restorations. 8th ed. Santa Rosa: Alta Books; 1997
Ericson D, Kidd E, McComb D, Mjor I, Noack MJ.Minimal Invasive Dentistry- concepts and techniques in cariology. Oral Health Prev Dent.2003;1(1):59-72
Peters MC, McLean ME. Minimally invasive operative care.I. Minimal intervention and concepts for minimally invasivecavity preparations. J Adhes Dent.2001 Spring;3(1):7-16.