You are on page 1of 10

Dent Mater8:310-319, September,1992

A classification of dental composites according to their
morphological and mechanical characteristics
G. Willems ~, P. Lambrechts ~, M. Braem 2, J. P. Celis 3, G. Vanherle 1

1Department of Operative Dentistry and Dental Materials, Katholieke Unwers~teitte Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
2Dental Propedeut~cs, Universitair Centrum Antwerpen (RUCA), Antwerp, Belgium
3Department of Metallurgy and Materials Engineering (MTM), Katholieke Universite~tte Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

Abstract. The on-going search for a biologically acceptable
restorative material has brought a confusing variety of composites
on the dental market. In the present study, commercially available
composites are categorized as a function of their mean particle
size, filler distribution, filler content, Young's modulus, surface
roughness, compressive strength, surface hardness, and filler
morphology. Out of th~sinformation, it can be concluded that the
materials of choice for restoring postenor cavit,es at present are
the Ultrafine Compact-Filled Composites because their ~ntrinsic
surface roughness, Young's modulus and, indirectly, their filler
content, compressive strength, and surface hardness are comparable to the same properties of enamel and dentin. The Ultrafine
Midway-Filled Compos,tes seem to be very sat,sfactory matenals
for antenor use.
INTRODUCTION
The increased need for esthetic tooth-colored restorative
materials has brought a confusing variety of composites onto
the dental market. The on-going search for a biologically
acceptable material that not only has physical and mechanical properties similar to natural tooth tissues but also is
economically and manipulatively equivalent to amalgam has
dramatically increased the number of dental composites
available.
To keep track of recently developed materials and to
categorize others, several classifications have been proposed.
The American Dental Association described two categories of
direct filling resins in Specification No. 27 (Council on Dental
Materials, American Dental Association, 1977). More elaborate rankings are based on the specific filler-size distribution
and amount of incorporated filler (Lutz and Phillips, 1983;
Albers, 1985; Leinfelder, 1985) as well as on filler appearance
and composition (Hosoda et al., 1990).
Filler content and size were shown to directly determine
the physical and mechanical properties of composite materials (Lietal., 1985; Braemetal., 1989; Chung, 1990; Chung and
Greener, 1990), ofwhichthe dynamicYoung's modulus (Braem,
1985; Braem et al., 1986), surface hardness (Craig, 1989) and
intrinsic surface roughness (Willems et al., 1991a) seem to be
the most clinically relevant for their mechanical performance.
The purpose of the present study was to rank most of the
commercially available composites as a function of their mean
particle size, filler size distribution, filler content, Young's

310 Wlllems et al /Classlhcatlon of dental composztes

modulus, surface roughness, surface hardness, compressive
strength, and scanning electron microscope (SEM) appearance.

MATERIALSAND METHODS
Table I lists the 89 commercially available composites investigated in this study. Approximately 3 g of each composite was
dissolved in acetone pro analysi (ACS, ISO, 14.100; Merck,
Darmstadt, Germany), mixed and centrifuged for 30 rain at
3000 rpm. The remaining solution of acetone and dissolved
resin was carefully removed by pipette aspiration without
agitating the centrifuged filler particles. This procedure was
then repeated a second time to completely remove remnants
of resin matrix. The supernatant was again removed and the
remaining filler particles dried at 37°C for 12 h. Finally, the
powder was ultrasonically agitated to reduce agglomeration of
filler particles. All powders were screened under SEM (PSEM
500, Phillips, Eindhoven, The Netherlands) to confirm complete filler isolation and to investigate filler morphology.
A computer-controlled apparatus (Coulter LS Series 100,
Coulter Electronics Inc., Hialeah, FL, USA), using laserdiffraction technology (laser light of 750 nm), was used to
determine particle size distribution. This equipment can
analyze a sample with a particle range of 0.4 to 800 ~m. Light
is diffracted around a particle at angles inversely proportional
to the size of the particle. The smaller the particle, the greater
will be the angle of diffraction (Fig. 1A). Most laser-diffraction
particle-size analyzers have only a single optical system (Fig.
1B ) for collecting and sensing diffracted light. Since one optical
system is not capable of capturing the full range of diffracted
light (from very large to very small particles), the collecting
lens must be changed or adjusted when diffraction angles
exceed the lens capabilities. Multiple optical detection systems (Fig. 1C) allow the particle-size analyzer to simultaneously capture the diffracted light of a wide range of particles
varying in size from 0.4 to 800 pro. The diffracted light is
collected by a Fourier lens, which focuses the light up to about
15 ° on two sets of detectors, one for low-angle scattering and
the other for mid-angle scattering. Another Fourier lens
system (multiple optical detection systems) collects the diffracted light from about 10° to 35 ° and focuses it onto a third
set of high-angle detectors (Fig. 1C).
A high-volume pump pushes the particles through the

USA Kanebo Tokyo. 285017 Gem-CCI. Germany GC Tokyo. 880614. 120489-18. Estllux Posterior XR2. 40536. 8E5103/8J5107. A8601/B8601.0903875. Gem-Dte I B0989450/C0589421. 880418 840522. 2038D/2045D/4090S Bis-Frl I. England DentaI-Matenai Gesellschaft MBH Hamburg. MN. 860832 AdaptJc. FuI-F~I. 010988-0203-90. Bnlhant Lux Bnlhant. Perfection 249010/247019. Isopast Schaan. 5904A2 Lumlfor. 70293 Tokuyama Soda Co LTD Palfique Estelite. 1007873. Durafill VS. 83 027. Clearfil Ray. USA Dental Composite L]D Kent. 061984034. Estdux Postenor.). 0008. Estlc Microfill. the laser light passing through it is directed on the particles for measurement and is diffracted from each particle and then collected by the optical detection system. Palfique Lrte. FuI-FdComp. liechtenstein 050384. USA Johnson & Johnson East Windsor. BnlhantD~rectInlay. 931231 021/94063022. Smterlux2 Amiens. 108259.8G1403/112988B. 413624#5/1/SM40. relatively inaccurate for particles of 3 pm or less. HAS 1004 Lee Pharmaceuticals Restolux SP-4 South El Monte. ClearfilPhoto Postenor. Graft LC. L139 009 + 012. The Fraunhofer optical model is. 1018. P-50 APC. makes use of the diffraction pattern formed when a beam of light falls onto a particle. 470201/452801. During testing. 201804/21300. 452901. Photo Clearfil A Osaka. Pekalux 5508E. IL. 1100B. Brilliant Dentin. 5E35P/5G81P. MIcrorest AP. 101588/021489. BIs-FII M. Prisma-Fd. USA Caulk Dentsply Milford. O165F. 030489-08 150584-36. Pnsma APH. Amalux2. BIs-FIIP 068307. 83 I61. Occlusm. HPS 1001. Marathon. DE. Germany Espe Seefeld. 311291 025/300691 Kuraray Clearfil. E8JD03/1DX2. PU 601 Vwadent Hehomolar. PalfiqueLJte Posterior Tokyo. 0989451 Superlux Molar.311291 030. 041385 0779 5 0787. Silar. AmaluxSintergel NC. 0105. 22 1C-1D-2B 020584. L604170.0411835502U4Y30AM2*/9BR2D. PostComp II 180931. USA Coltene Altstatten. LU 205. Adaptlc RadJopaque. As the sample particles move through the cell. 0004 Epohte 100. EA140/UM120 Conquest DFC. Opalux B221181 C251081. Clearfil Lustre.0217849/3L1604.Z-100 A1994/81994. Vlslo FII. Estdux Posterior XR1. Japan Jenenc/Pentron Walhngford. Isomolar. Durafrll. 61039. Valux. Pnsma-MJcrofine. Japan 43005 BFXC-0204 + CFXC-0104. Japan EU 206. CA. N~met~cDJspers.2D951/1E951 Bell FJrm 1ND3N Command Ultrafine. NJ.17-17106/17107A. HehosJt. P-10. Switzerland Kulzer Fnednchsdorf. 221281/211281/050192. HehoProgress. Superlux Solar 00938. USA Bayer Dormagen. Hercuhte Condensable. Pnsma-F~lComp. Hehomolar Radlopaque.met~c. 880919. Switzerland Den-Mat Santa Mana. Mlradapt 053183 3A001. 0204. 6G1. Pekafill. V~slo Molar Radfopaque 0014 L157. however.112983. also known as the Fraunhofer optical model (Coulter Electronics Inc. Estrlux Hybrid VS. Japan Kerr Basel. USA 9310RP1D0 Pierre Roland Amalux. VlsJoDispers. HercuhteXR 1 841286 BS U 30344. Answer. Adaptic II. 840514 CH-B4135. an ultrasonic mixer maximizes dispersion. Multff~llVS 300692 33/300691 2021/311291 22. 300692 161. Clearfil Ray Posterior. P-30. Pertac Hybrid. Silux Plus. 078219/039111 B~ogloss. Adaptlc LCM. Aurafill. Pnsma-M~crofineComp. Germany B~sco Lombard. Estrlux Posterior CVS. EXP LOT 5. 22 B430484 + C370484 TABLE 2: REFRACTIVE INDEXES OF FILLER PARTICLES Zirconrum Glass Ytterbium trffluonde Quartz 1 520 1 530 1 540 Banum Strontium Glass 1 550 1 550 Barrumborosdicate Polystyrene Latex 1 554 1 650 diffraction sample cell four times a minute and keeps heavier particles in suspension. Silux. Germany Brand Name BatchNo Concise. 300692 33. 0684 045P + 131 C. Certarn. CA. 1113862. Small particles have Dental Matenals/September 1992 311 . France 40536. B 551183 + C701183.STATE/COUNTRY 3M St Paul. This diffraction method. 230241. EXP 1092/O 1275 Chansma. CT. 01O84 N. P-30 APC.TABLE 1: ALPHABETIC LIST OF MANUFACTURERS MANUFACTURER CITY.

3 57 5 51 7 54 7 48. the control-computer enabled the operator to calculate a new optical model as a function of the real and imaginary refractive index of sample particles and medium distilled water) when 20 vol% or more of the sample particles appeared to be smaller than 3 ~tm.3 372 87 FuI-Fil compules 60 81 0 39 13. Braem (1985) has proposed a phenomenological model for dental composites given by Eq.Ra intrinsicsurfaceroughness(~tm).72 ~m was very accurately reproduced.0 450 126 61.TABLE 3: DENSIFIEDCOMPOSITES:MIDWAY-FILLED PRODUCTS MPS Mo Ra Y-Mod Vol%A Vol%B CS HV 0.9 08 08 0 21 0.12 3.4 to 800 ilm.94 18.1 0.062 53 1 61. The accuracy of the particle size analyzer was checked by means of polymer latex particles with a known refractive index (Polystyrene Latex./Classlhcatton of dental composites high diffraction angles and sometimes diffracted light is erroneously detected by the optical detection system.0 57 0 59.3 56.50 14.451 15. The mean particle sizes (MPS) for the studied composites are given in Tables 3 to 8.251 51.VoI% A inorganic filler volume percentage as calculated according to Braem (1985).Young'sModulusof elasticity(MPa). For several test materials (marked with an asterisk in Tables 3 to 8).644 52.2 0.060 17.4 68 5 51.4 0 68 13. the greater will be the angle of diffraction (A).5 43 13.4 0.514 16.9 56 5 49.2 Superlux Molar 5.19 0. Table 2 lists the refractive indexes of filler particles obtained from manufacturers and used for calculating these specific optical models. the collecting lens must be changed or adjusted when diffraction angles exceed lens capabilities. Their mean particle diameter and standard deviation of 1. This study used the same sample preparation and technique to determine the Young's modulus for the more recent materials.33 e 002977172ox (1) where E is the Young's modulus and X is the percentage of .*Young's modulusdata taken from Braem (1985) L A S E R A HdoulrLsztm oneatlnt~ ~ A 0 E H~oulTsm ~lzoennatll A ~~~ETECTOa~.0 1. Therefore.8 55 2 54.8 55 2 70. Multiple optical detection systems (C) allow the Coulter LS Series particle slzer to capture simultaneously the diffracted light of a wide range of particles varying in size from 0.6 20 1.487 59 9 Gem-bte I 93 12.9 3. LLghtISdiffracted around a particle at angles inversely proportional to the size of the particle.103. VoI%B: inorganicfiller volume percentage as obtained from the manufacturers.511 15.6 54 0 55 3 49.2 28 35 0 34 14. CS: compressivestrength (MPa).0 18 1.1 09 10 07 0.Y-Mod.8 10.0 51 0 353 79 52.This process is computer-controlledand is necessary to increase the accuracy of the determination of the particle size distribution.9 53.842 50 2 FuI-Fil* 60 8.46 64 4 144 Pnsma-Fil Compules 84 12. Most laser diffraction particle mzers have only a single optical system (B) for collecting and sensing diffracted light.1 2.586 17. 1.208 15. the dynamic Young~smodulus was determined non-destructively by Braem (1985) and Braem et al.7 49.HV: Vlckers Hardness(kg/mm2).9 58.8 2.0 344 414 397 417 483 350 328 342 330 377 87 65 74 81 95 73 Ultrafine Midway-Filled Composites Command Ultrafine* Herculite condensable HercuhteXR Charisma Conquest DFC Biogloss* Bnlliant* Brilliant Direct Inlay Brilhant Lux* Bnlliant Dentin Lumlfor* Pekafill Post Comp II LC PnsmaAPH 1.6 55 2 50 7 58 1 53.821 13.0 83 Prisma-Rl* 7.3 10 0 0 60 14.871 16.190 16.Mo: modeof the particlesizedistribution (~tm).079 13. (1986).1 0. 1: E = 3.~ C Fig.5 52.12 0. to compensate for this error.362 49. together with the mode of filler distribution (Mo).984 50 6 60.465 51 7 52.29 345 383 85 70 84 84 84 97 77 Fine Midway-Filled Composites 52.8 97 Pertac Hybnd 4.176 14.7 2.2 81 15. This is the particle size whose frequency of occurrence is greatest.803 14.11 0 21 0.14_+0.4 2.8 117 Gem-CCI 76 11.7 3.0 343 90 MPS.20 0.) intended for this purpose. Therefore.8 3. meanparticlesize(~tm). 312 Wtflems et al. Coulter Electronics Inc. The smaller the particle.042 14.2 21 3.

508 69 4 68 4 332 128 Graft LC 67 81 1 26 21. Hardness measurements were made with a Durimet microhardness tester (Leitz GmbH. In addition. Polaron Equipment Limited. Prior to measurement.293 19.876 23. The compressive strength values for all materials were taken from the literature and from manufacturers' information. Vol%B' =norgan~cfiller volumepercentage as obtainedfrom the manufacturers. Balzers.343 63 2 68 0 348 125 Occlusm* 86 12 4 0 99 23.728 21. 1984). Additional SEM investigation was carried out to illustrate filler morphology. The average Vickers hardness is given in Tables 3 to 8.384 73 1 69 0 408 174 Clearfil Ray Posterior 82 12 4 0 65 26. Rank Taylor Hobson. These theoretical values (Vol%A)are listed in Tables 3 to 8 next to the volumetric filler percentages (Vol%B) compiled from hterature and manufacturers' information.CS compressivestrength (MPa). Microfine Composites. Vickers hardness was determined for human enamel and dentin (Table 9).Y-Mod'Young'sModulusofelastlcity(MPa).225 70 4 69 0 400 186 Ws~oMolarRadlopaque 75 10 0 1 08 26. 2-8. This ranking is based on transition areas in criteria such as Young's Modulus. 2-8). and the sample was coated with a layer of pure gold by vaporization in an argon gas atmosphere (SEM coating umt E-5100. Traditional Composites and FiberReinforced Composites. A Vickers diamond pyramid indenter test was used for determining the microhardness of composites. Wetzlar. Zaventem. Table 9 lists the average Vickers hardness and standard deviation of human enamel and dentin. Inorganic filler volume percentages were derived from Eq. England. 199 la). surface hardness. UK).754 72 4 68 4 MPS meanparttclesize(pm). Since the amount of generated data was quite extensive.Vol% A ~norgan~cfiller volumepercentageas calculatedaccordingto Braem (1985).774 68 4 69 0 277 111 Opalux 89 12 4 0 79 22.219 63 0 74 0 408 159 Clearfil Photo Posterior 7. intrinsic surface roughness. Recently determined roughness values were combined with the results of this previously reported study.Raintnnstcsurfaceroughness(pm). which were embedded in the same epoxy resin and subjected to the same polishing procedure..030 65 6 67 8 67 5 70 1 71..719 65 4 299 100 Marathon 79 10 0 1 07 20.TABLE4: DENSIFIEDCOMPOSITES COMPACT-FILLED PRODUCTS ~~pact-Filled Adapt~c II P-30* P-30 APC P-50 APC Palfique L~tePosterior Valux Z-100 MPS Mo Ra Y-Mod Vol%A Vol%B CS HV 3. and compressive strength. Dilbeek. a total of 22 Vickers indentations were made in samples of three human teeth. were embedded in epoxy resin (Araldite DRL and Hardener HY956. With a computerized roughness tester (Form Talysurf 10. 1991a). Lake Bluff.5 10 0 0 53 25.Momodeoftheparttcleslzedrstribution(pm). Belgium] and afterwards metallographically polished accordmg to a previously reported polishing procedure (Willems et al.2 10 0 0 80 19. Loose powder particles were removed by air pressure. Ciba Geigy.48 0 67 0 71 0 48 21. Watford.435 72 0 71 0 345 130 EstlluxHybndVS 88 12 4 0 90 22.991 62 6 74 0 339 114 Bis-RI P 20. 9 and 10 and will be further reviewed in the discussion section. Germany) with a load of 100 g. IL. The brushing process was performed with a modified Minimet machine (Buehler.9 73 25 12 59 23 08 0.385 23. This new classification is presented visually in Figs. the specimens. Leicester. 5 mm in diameter and 5 mm high.117 702 691 350 166 Photo ClearfilA 79 10 0 1 17 25. Isolated filler particles were spread on double-sided adhesive and electroconductlve tape (Leitendes Klebeband A16. mean particle size. RESULTS The results of the different investigated properties are listed m Tables 3 to 8. England.343 70 5 71 0 350 ClearfilRay 80 10 0 1 18 27.I-IV VickersHardness(kg/mm2).UK).*Young's modulusdatataken from Braem(1985) volumetric filler. the average roughness (Ra) of composite surfaces was measured after a toothbrush-dentifrice abrasion test.336 66 3 390 174 P-10 (PasteA-B)* 51-36 100-39 1 02 25. USA) and was extensively described in an earlier report (Willems et al.8 62 1 64 3 66 5 69 9 69 0 77 0 73 0 380 340 394 395 421 430 448 106 107 157 159 143 107 120 Composites 32 28 30 21 36 24 10 0 27 0 27 71 0 FineCompact-FilledComposites 345 102 BIs-RI I 8. Miscellaneous Composites. Additional SEM investigations were performed to confirm filler morphology (Figs. 1 for the experimentally obtained Young's moduli. A selection of photomicrographs is given in Figs.007 26. Ten indentations were produced for each sample. the 89 composites are already divided into five categories: Densified Composites.155 25. inorganic filler volume percent. The procedure covered the requirements of the Standard Test Method for Microhardness of Materials (American Societyfor Testing and Materials. For both tooth substances. Belgium) mounted on an SEM stub.594 66 7 68 4 345 133 Esttlux PosteriorCVS 96 12 4 1 48 24. These values can Dental Materials~September 1992 313 .

473 9. from 65 to 97 and from 100 to 186. respectively.0 16. particularly in posterior regions.CS compressivestrength (MPa).4 13. One advantage of the present study is that the mathematical calculation used to determine the particle size distribution was done using the same algorithm inherent to the particle sizing apparatus.679 7..770 6.436 8. First of all.4 20 4 36 0 37.2 37. Braem et al.33 13.932 10.0 with spherical prepolymerized fillers MPS meanparticlesize(~tm).*Young's modulus data taken from Braem (1985) serve as a basis for comparison for the investigated dental materials. MidwayFilled and Compact-Filled composites broadly range from 25 to 63. 1985. Vol%B: inorganic filler volume percentageas obtainedfrom the manufacturers. the exponential dependence of the Young~sModulus on the volumetric filler fraction offers an opportunity to check the volumetric filler percentages obtained from manufacturers. Vol%A inorganicfiller volume percentageas calculatedaccordingto Braem (1985). 1987). DISCUSSION Composites have been available to the dental profession for many years.04 0 04 0 04 0 04 0.5 29.6 23. Additionally..833 5.384 49 0 45. there are obvious differences between these values.466 7. an elaborate categorization should be based on additional criteria in order to obtain a more accurate descrip- 314 W~llems et al /Classlhcatlon of dental composites tion of the material.3 25 9 39 5-15 3 32 0 39. Lambrechts et al..5 0 08 0 11 0. However.372 11. the inorganic filler fraction in volume percent and the mean particle size are criteria on which most classifications are based (Lutz and Phillips. Since the phenomenological model has proven its validity (Braem et al.0 32 0 53 59 0 22 0 25 0.9 22.19 0 13 0 10 0. 1987).8-21 3 20. 1985.5 11 7 17 9 13 6 16.905 34.6 15 3 18 9 25 9 15.04 0 04 0 04 0. a material with a low modulus will deform more under masticatory stresses.Mo modeof the particlestzedlstnbut=on(~m). Y-Mod: Young's Modulusof elasticity (MPa).PPF' meanparticlesizeof prepolymenzedfillers and sinteredagglomerates.0 24 7 36 1 24 3 38 0 18 8 34 5 31 1 20 0 25. like surface gloss. The criteria used in this study to describe the commercially available composites were carefully selected.04 0 04 0 04 0 04 13 0 13 3-20 7 12.TABLE 5: MICROFINECOMPOSITES I PRODUCTS MPS PPF HOMOGENEOUSMICROFINECOMPOSITES HETEROGENEOUSMICROFINECOMPOSITES Mo Ra Y-Mod Vol%A Vol%B CS HV 31 4 37 5 37 5 36 1 43. one may well question the information some manufacturers release regarding this property.372 9.2 18 9-48. Vickers hardness values of the Microfine.085 6.13 0. The mass of data generated about the various competing products is very confusing.612 5. 1983.2 0 12 0 07 0 13 50 36 55 25 42 39 35 4 36.. This surface condition is achieved after extensive toothbrush-dentifrice abrasion ofthe composite and is an inherent characteristic of the material tested that determines its clinical behavior. resulting in catastrophic failures (Albers. staining and friction.3 18 9 15.5 31 9 0 22 0.04 0.154 6. An enamel surface roughness value at enamel-toenamel occlusal contact areas of 0.21 0 16 0. The Young's modulus is a very sensitive parameter for evaluating and ranking particle reinforced composites (Braem. and ranking the different materials according to their laboratory results does not necessarily reflect their clinical performance (Lambrechts et al. HV Vlckers Hardness(kg/mm2). Albers.0 24 3 45 3 23 2 17 1 365 463 474 415 330 400 390 359 304 43 48 45 with splintered prepolymerized fillers Certain* Durafill* Durafill VS Estic Microfill* Heho Progress Hehosit* Isomolar* Isopast (Base-Cat)* Microrest AP* Multifill VS Perfection Pnsma-Microfine Compules Prisma-Microfine Silar Paste (A-B)* Sllux* S~luxPlus Superlux Solar 0 04 0 04 0. 1987).692 9.04 0.64 _+0.612 10.8 18 9 12 4-32 0 18 9 13 9 0. Indeed. so the acquired individual data can accurately be compared with one another.04 14 2 17 0 15. Leinfelder.25 ~m is considered to be the standard with which to compare the roughness .3 262 283 344 41 0 324 39 7 49 1 40 5 498 303 325 455 55 63 61 304 47 70 55 46 59 55 with agglomerated prepolymerized fillers Adaptic LCM Answer (Uni-Cat)* Heliomolar* Nimettc bispers* with sintered agglomerates Amalux* Amalux SmtergelNC Slnterlux 2* 39 0 39.8 17 0 16.918 9. Another criterion to consider is the intrinsic surface roughness of a material.075 9.620 6. 1974).0 22. The most appropriate modulus of elasticity for a composite would be one comparable to that of dentin and amalgam (Nakayama et al. 1985.8 39 5 39.401 9.8 20.700 9.1 37 5 31 4 25.09 9.16 8.619 5.. For several products.Ra intnns=c surface roughness(~m). 1986).04 0 04 0 04 0 04 0 04 0.098 6.5 20 8-12.0 48 8 54.147 38 3 39 1 41 3 39 8 0 04 0 04 0 04 12 4 52 8. 1985).

Therefore.973 TABLE 7: TRADITIONALCOMPOSITES 1 26 21.511 12.786 9. and compressive strength (L1 et al. Ultrafine (MPS <3 pro) and Fine (MPS >3 pm). This corresponds to an imaginary volume percentage of 60% according to Eq. indicates the ability ofa material to withstand vertical stresses.9 0 91 20..118 47 8 44 0 45 8 45 8 59. 1989). and Fiber-Reinforced Composites. according to Lemfelder (1985). Higher filler levels result in increased stiffness. This is true because of the relation whmh exists between hardness and other physical properties (O'Neill.0 56 0 56 0 324 301 387 373 373 63 100 63 70 0 26 0 13 10.882 11. In addition.500 MPa (Craig.166 51 0 343 89 27 with agglomerated prepolymerized fillers Vis~oDispers* HehomolarRadiopaque with sintered agglomerates Amalux2 with spherical prepolymerized fillers Pekalux RestoluxSP-4 MPS 11 2 0 18 5.723 65 4 TABLE 8: FIBER-REINFORCEDCOMPOSITES 15 3 1 19 23. The Heterogeneous Microfine Composites (Table 5) as well as the Miscellaneous Composites (Table 61 were subdivided according to the type of prepolymerized or agglomerated fillers used. Microfine Composites. All composites were ranked in a classification containing five categories: Densified Composites.9 13 4 15 1 Y-Mod Vol%A Vol%B CS HV 12. as a function of the mean particle size of the composites (Inokoshi et al. hardness. the group of Densified Composites was subdivided into two classes. compressive strength values obtained from the literature are given.Vol%A inorganic filler volumepercentageas calculatedaccording to Braem(1985). which produced somewhat higher hardness values (Atmadja and Bryant. Finally.modeofthepartlclesJzedrstnbut~on(pm). respectively. 1967).. 1991a). in particular. the intrinsic surface roughness of composites should be less than or equal to that of enamel-to-enamelocclusal contact areas (Willemsetal. Indeed.531 1 46 18. Table 9 also gives the obtained average Vickers hardness of Dental Matenals/September 1992 315 . Tables 7 and 8 give the result for the Traditional Composites and the Fiber-Reinforced Composites. Dentin has a Young's modulus of 18. <60 vo]% and >60 vol% respectively.Ra intransicsurfaceroughness(pm). according to the TABLE 9: AVERAGEVlCKERSHARDNESSVALUES (AV) AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS(SD)OF HUMANENAMELAND DENTIN(N = NUMBEROF INDENTATIONS) enamel dentin AV 408 60 SD 33 4 n 22 22 amount of inorganic filler content.TABLE 6: MISCELLANEOUSCOMPOSITES PRODUCTS MPS Mo Ra 0.. Braem et al. 1985).8-100 12 3 12 4 15 3 15 3 0 96 0 58 0.908 64 1 81 1 23 21. 1990).. Each class was further divided into two subclasses. Composites intended for posterior use should have a Young's modulus at least equal to that of dentin (Nakayama et al. Miscellaneous Composites.206 0 88 17. 1991a).755 41 8 38 5 47 6 48 0 455 340 63 56 0 44 14.. A general overview is given in Figs. 1 (Braem.74 15 0 13 1 15 3 15 3 64 47 16 1 15 3 Adapt~c(80's)* 15 4 Adaptic Radiopaque(UnJ-Cat)* 13 5-8 1 Aurafill* 86 Clearhll* 97 Concise* Epolite 100' 10 1 EstlluxPostenor* 95 Estilux PostenorXRI* 51 Est~luxPostenorXR2 88 Mlradapt* 78 Nlmetic(Unl-Cat)* 14 4-12 4 Vlslo FII* 75 18 8 18 8-12 4 12 4 12 4 with splintered prepolymerized fillers Bell Firm(Uni-Cat) 2 0-7 4 Bis-RI M ClearfilLustre Palflque Estehte Palflque Lite 10 4 12.* Young's modulusdatataken from Braem(1985) values of composites (Willems et al. 1974) and preferably higher. The Vickers hardness values presented in this study were obtained after complete post-polymerization of the samples. which is vital in high stress areas. The relative importance of a Vickers hardness test lies in the fact that it throws light on the mechanical properties of the materials investigated.408 21.935 0 83 20. Vol%B inorganicfiller volumepercentageas obtainedfrom the manufacturers.HV VickersHardness(kg/mm2).Y-ModYoung'sModulusofelastlcity(MPa).412 1 08 19.CS compressive strength (MPa).373 1 44 22..Mo.839 60 1 58 9 64 4 346 310 330 350 68 5 121 105 93 107 96 112 149 160 125 meanpartlclesize(pm). 1989). 9 and 10. In press). Traditional Composites.320 63 1 32 0-25.616 0 85 17.805 22 0 54 7 275 64 9 61 9 58 9 63 2 66 6 59 4 57 9 65 5 56 3 55 0 62 0 58 1 56 8 53 0 58 1 66 2 234 240 345 252 241 253 294 12 4 12. the wear rate of composites can be substantmlly reduced by decreasing the filler particle s~ze and by increasing the inorganic filler fraction. 1985.132 12.4 11 1 12 4 10 0 1 01 20. The surface hardness of the dental restorative materials was measured. The compressive strength. Midway-Filled (Table 3) and Compact-Filled (Table 4).

1991a).Fig. Indeed. 2) are very promising materials for posterior use when all Class III. 4). They also mental products (Roulet.. 1982). O'Brien and Ryge. with these standards. 5. IV. They have a Young's modulus that is high enough to resist the functional stresses which are less important in anterior restorations when normal occlusion is considered (Howell and Brudevold. Craig. which suggests manufacturing difficulties. 3. 1989). They differ mainly These resin composites are therefore less suitable used in small Class III and V restorain the manufacturing process of their prepolymenzed for posterior use (bar = 20 lira). They have a Young's et al.. is composed of very fine bariumglass particles with an average particle size of 1. 1978. The Ultrafine Compact-Filled Composites (Table 4 and thus yielding high failure rates in occlusal cavities and large Fig. that they are able to support occlusal stresses.. data (Caldwell et al. At present. Its big filler particles are expected to prepolymerized fillers. they are the materials of choice for restoring posterior cavities (bar = 10 ~m). Van Meerbeek of the above is taken into account. Command Ultrafine. 1961. Restorative materials can be compared (Table 5). 1979). they all have a very low inorganic filler content. 1985. 4. Ryge et al. 1981) (Fig. filler particles. and V restorations (Albers.48 ~tm to 0. Furthermore. their surface roughness ranges from 0. FuI-Fd Compules (A) is a Fine Midway-Filled Fig. The Ultrafine Midway-Filled Composites could be very satisfactory materials for the restoration of anterior teeth (Table 3 and Fig. Composites. Answer (B)is a chemically cured Heterogeneous cavities.m. 1989). Homogeneous Microfine display goodVickers hardness values compared to dentin and Composites are not commercially available because of relatively high compressive strength values. They should be used in large Class Fig. Both UItraflne Compact-Filled Composites Adaptic II (A) and P-50 APC (B) are heavily filled with rather small inorganic particles. Howare more round (bar = 20 ~m). De Boever et al. 1957.1 p. Sdux Plus (A) is a light cured Heterogeneous Composite..te yields good esthetics and is strong enough to withstand mastlcatory stresses in anterior restorations (bar = 10 ~m).. 1987). 2. Silux Plus contains fillers of a more tions because of their glossy appearangular shape whereas the filler particles of Answer ance (Ameye et al. In press).. approximately the same properties. inserting a high amount of 316 W#lems et al /Classlhcatlon of dental composites .71 pm. it is less Microfine Composite with splintered prepolymerized III and V restorations and in Class IV esthetcally pleasing than the Ultrafme Midway-Filled fillers. The Ultrafine Compact-Filled Composites are thus the materials of choice for restoring posterior cavities. 1950. Craig. 9) were found only in some experithey have a high amount of inorganic particles. which makes them more susceptible to occlusal deformation. which is very similar to that of enamel (Willems et al. ever. they are not indicated for larger cavities because of their low Young~s human enamel and dentin which correlates with literature modulus and high chipping sensitivity (Lambrechts et al. Microfine Composites with spherical modulus that is higher than that of dentin (Craig. Their relatively low intrinsic roughness is due to their very small particle size (MPS <3 ~m) and makes them very suitable for anterior use. an Ultrafine MidwayFilled Composite. Graft LC (B) is a Fine Compact-Filled MIcrofine Composite with agglomerated The highly polishable Microfine Composite. 3).This type of compos. and prepolymerized fillers (Fig. Both materials have Composites (Table 5) are frequently increase the occlusal wear rate of the material. No matter what type of pre-polymerate is used 1978. Fig.. Due to its fairly large particles.

It should be noted that the MPS-value of 0. Restolux SP-4 was the only investigated product in this group. 1983). The Ftber-Remforced Composite.04 pm listed in Table 5 for the Microfine Composites represents a commonly accepted mean particle size of the finely divided colloidal silica. They exhibit a rather high surface roughness. which are embedded in resin matrix (bar = 20 #m).. a Miscellaneous Composite with spherical prepolymerized fillers. Traditional Composites very often contain large quartz particles that are very hard. As stated above. Categorization of composttes finely divided colloidal silica of 40 nm average particle size (Aerosil. ranging from 0.F~g. However. Hanau-Wolfgang. Finally. Data on Young's modulus. 8. 6 shows Pekalux. Miscellaneous Composites (Table 6) are materials that contain a blend of prepolymerized and inorganic fillers. These are the Microfine Composites. 5) contain composites with an appreciably higher particle size (6-10 pin). Three main groups can clearly be differentiated. Chemical-cured composites such as the Traditional Composite Epolite 100 (circle Dental Matenals/September 1992 317 . Most of these composites have therefore been replaced by products with an improved filler concept. The latter are sometimes intentionally added to increase the radiopacity of these composites.. This makes the material less suitable as an amalgam substitute. 6. Restolux SP-4 has a very satisfactory Young's modulus and could perform well in posterior cavities. are clearly apparent (bar = 20 pm). respectively. These composites are. Trying to rank these materials is very difficult because of their heterogeneous composition.007 to 0. the particle-size analyzer only measured the mean particle size of prepolymerized resin fillers and sintered agglomerates which is represented by the PPF-value in Table 5. Slight variations in the size of these silica particles do exist. a Miscellaneous Composite.115 pm (Albers. RestoluxSP4 contains glass ceramtc fibers with a maxtmum length of 300 pro. This composite is composed of glass-ceramic fibers of a maximum length ofapprox]mately 300 pro. 8). 1989). represent all subdivisions of the classification introduced in this article. The Traditional Composites are situated next to the CompactFilled Composites. 10 for 62 composites. quartz lacks the radiopacity required for posterior restorations (Willems et al. 7) are older materials and are no longer promoted. 1987. Fig. Germany) considerably increases the material's viscosity and jeopardizes its handling characteristics (Lambrechts and Vanherle. In addition.zed filler particles of Pekalux. In press) probably would generate significantly higher wear values compared with the enamel standard (Lambrechts et al. Exposure ofthese filler particles because of resin matrix wear results in a higher surface roughness and clinically a dull appearance. However. and Fig. Both Fine Midway. Degussa AG. The Traditional Composites (Table 7 and Fig. based on their surface roughness which reflects their mean particle size. 1985). resulting in a decreased polishability. Adaptlc ~s a Traditional Composite. the Midway-Filled Composites and the Compact-Filled Composites. 7. less suitable for anterior or posterior use. its rather high intrinsic roughness and relatively hard glass ceramic fillers (Willems et al.and Fine Compact-Filled subdivisions (Tables 3 and 4. Fig. 9. bigger particles also Fig. There is also a trend for a further subd]vimon (Ultrafine versus Fine) of the last two groups mentioned. therefore. Vlckers hardness and surface roughness were assembled in Fig. These composites are older materials and are now rarely used (bar = 20 pro) DENSIFIEDCOMPOSITES MICROFINECOMPOSITES TRADITIONALCOMPOSITES FIBER-REINFORCED COMPOSITES Fig.. tend to increase the wear rate of the materials. These 62 materials. of which data for all three properties was available. These materials are now abandonned and replaced by technologically improved products. The spherical prepolymer. 199 lb). the last subdivision contains the Fiber-Reinforced Composites (Table 8 and Fig.

. Section 03. high Youn~s modulus and Vickers hardness values combinedwith a relatively low surface roughness value would be the charateristic properties of the posterior composite of choice. Van Doren VE. but its Young's modulus and Vickers hardness clearly belong to the range of the Compact-Filled Composites. Braem M.-19733 107 12717 186 ~ 5700 Young'sModulus(MPa) Fig. P-50 APC. The impact of composite structure on its elastic response. Resin systems. and surface hardness between composites and human enamel and dentin showed that the Ultra fine Compact-Filled Composites are the materials of choice for restoring posterior cavities. Young's modulus. marked with an asterisk) and the Midway-Filled Composite Gem-CCI (cross marked with an asterisk) clearly display higher surface roughness due to the incorporation of air bubbles and voids during the required mixing process. Ideally. Lambrechts P. Gilmore RW. Van Doren VE.50 ~ : MIC : UMF FMF UCF 12o <> : FCF . Complete data sets were available for 61 composites. 318 Willems et al /Classlflcatlon of dental composites Addresscorrespondenceandrepnntrequests to G Wfllems Department of Operatwe Dentistry and Dental Materials Kathoheke Umversltelt te Leuven U Z St Raphael Kapucljnenvoer7 3000 Leuven. FCF: Fine Compact-Filled Composites. Seventh edition. J Mater Sci 22:2037-2042. surface roughness and Vckers hardness. 10 may be of help in categorizing newly developed materials.. slightly approximates the Midway-Filled Composite range. 1992/ Accepted July 31. and Z-100 (indicated by small filled diamonds). which reflects their filler content. In: An invitro investigation into the physical durability of dental composites. J Dent Res 65:648-653. namely Adaptic II.301 0. Pigman W (1957). MIS: Miscellaneous Composites. Easton: American Society for Testing and Materials. I. Cotati: Alto Books.... Vanherle G (1981). Lambrechts P. Conventional and microfilled composite resins. The diamond marked with an asterisk represents the CompactFilled Composite Valux. 1992 . Ameye C. UCF: Ultrafine (Fine) Compact-Filled Composites. Muntz ML.90 O E use. In: Tooth colored restoratives. Lambrechts P. Caldwell RC. Color stability and marginal adaptation. Checking the intrinsic surface roughness and Young's modulus of these new composites will considerably help to rank these materials among competing products.. Leuven: Acco. The Vickers hardness additionally gives an idea about the mechanical properties of the material investigated. FMF: Fine Midway-Fdled Composites. Braem M. The Ultrafine MidwayFilled Composites seem to be very satisfactory materials for anterior Classification of Resin Composites 1. Young's modulus determination. Received February 25. Braem M. clinical studies on composites will have to confirm their in vitro performance. UMF: Ultrafine (Free) Midway-Filled Composites. Some factors influencing the depth ofcure ofvisible light-activated compositeresins. TRA: Traditional Composites. Dent Mater 5:346-349. . 21-62.Belgmm REFERENCES Albers HF (1985). Finger W. 85-116. Only three composites approximate this concept. However. Vanherle G (1987). American Society for Testing and Materials (1984). Mechanical properties and filler fraction ofdental composites. The goal in restorative dentistry should be to make highly wear-resistant occluding surfaces that do not wear opposing structures. (MIC: Microfine Composites. FRC: FiberReinforced Composite). The parameters displayed in Fig. Aust Dent J 35:213-218. Determination ofYoung's modulus of dental composites: a phenomenological model. Atmadja G and Bryant RW (1990).." 0. Its surface roughness. Van Doren VE. editor. Annual book of ASTM Standards. 10. Vanherle G (1986). Braem M (1985). JDent Res 36:732-738.~' MIS o : TRA ¢ : FRC I "/r 0. Vanherle G (1989). Microhardness studies ofintact surface enamel. Designation E 384-84: Standard test method for microhardness of materials. J Prosthet Dent 46:623-630. 356-377. Three-dimensional graph representing the obtained data on Young's modulus. In: Priemon RA. Lambrechts P.03.00 2675o Ill[ . Thesis. however. compressive strength. All three composites are Ultafine Compact-Filled Composites. r.The comparison of properties such as intrinsic surface roughness.

Braem M. Philadelphia: W. O'Neill H (1967). Swartz ML. Braem M. Roulet JF (1987). J Biomed Mater Res : Accepted. 191-207. JDent Res 68:1752-1754. SEM and elemental analysis of composite resins. Hosoda H. Noack MJ. Vanherle G (1987). Polymer constructions used in restorative dentistry. Vanherle G (1991b). Vuylsteke-Wauters M. Hardness relations with other physical properties. Effect of filler content and size on properties of composites. Van Meerbeek B. 1991. J Prosthet Dent: Accepted. Roberts TA (1985). Inokoshi S. Katz. 1990. Correlation between degree of conversion. Lambrechts P. St Louis: C. Part II: Chip fractures. Inokoshl S (1990). 3-59. Holden S. J Oral Rehabil 17:487-494. JL (1974). Lambrechts P. Vanherle G (In press). 2nd edition. Ryge G. filler concentration and mechanical properties of posterior composite resins. In: Restorative Dental Materials. J Prosthet Dent 40:326-333. Roulet JF. American Dental Association (1977). 1st edition. Willems G. Phillips RW (1983). Lambrechts P. Vanherle G/1982). J Prosthet Dent 48:527-538. Specification # 27 for d~rect filling materials. Howell AH. Tabulated values ofphysical and mechanical properties. J Dent Res 70:1299-1305. The surface roughness of enamel-toenamel contact areas compared with the intrinsic roughness of dental resin composites. Lambrechts P.Part I: Filler particle distribution J Oral Rehabil: Accepted. In: Degradation of Dental Polymers.Chung KH (1990). Mechanical properties. Brudevold F (1950). Foley DE. J Dent Res 64:1396-1401. Greener EH (1990). Vuylsteke-Wauters M. J Dent Res 58:1544-1550. Dual-cure luting composites . Hardness and Young's modulus determined by nano-indentation technique of filler particles of dental restorative materials compared with human enamel. Selected properties of dental composites.B. J Prosthet Dent 64:669-676. Wfllems G. Basel: Karger. McGall WD. Li Y. Lambrechts P. Fairhurst CW (1961). J Dent Res 53:1121-1126. J Dent 19:362-365 Dental Matenals/September 1992 319 . Conventional and microfilled composite resins. Braem M. Ryge GR (1978). Chung KH. Oper Dent 12:53-78. In: Hardness measurement of metals and alloys. Inokoshi S. Braem M. Micro-indentation hardness. Lutz F. Vanherle G (In press). J Dent Res 40:1116-1126. J A m Dent Assoc 94:1191. Wfllems G. Lambrechts P. Mosby Company. Evaluation of two dentin adhesives in cervical lesions. O'Brien WJ. Grenoble DE. Lambrechts P. The relationship between composition and properties of posterior resin composites. Hall DR. London: Chapman and Hall Ltd. Functional occlusal forces: an investigation by telemetry. Braem M. Vanherle G (In press). In: An Outline of Dental Materials and their Selection. Lambrechts P. Vanherle G (1991a). J Dent Res 29:133-136. Wlllems G. Ash MM (1978). Council on Dental Materials. Yamada T. 65-112. Cells JP. Braem M. Composite resins. Braem M. Lambrechts P. Radiopacity of composites compared with human enamel and dentine. Saunders Company. Craig RG (1979). Quantitative in vivo wear of human enamel. Dent Chn North Am 29:359-371. A classification and evaluation of composite resin systems. 1992. Elastic properties of dental resin restorative materials.V. De Boever JA. Ameye C. Craig RG (1989). Structural evidences of the microfilled composites J Bwmed Mater Res 17:249-260. Nakayama WT. Van Meerbeek B. 385-408. Vertical forces used during chewing of food. Lemfelder KF (1985). JDentRes 69:852856. Van Meerbeek B. Evaluation of climcal performance for posterior composite resins and dentin adhesives. Vanherle G (1989). Vanherle G (1983). Phillips RW. J Prosthet Dent 50:480-488. Eighth edition. Moore BK.