[Downloaded free from http://www.jcd.org.in on Wednesday, May 11, 2022, IP: 124.253.23.

33]

Original Article

Comparison of the fracture resistance of three

different recent composite systems in large Class II
mesio‑occlusal distal cavities: An in vitro study
Yajuvender Singh Hada, Sumita Panwar
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Daswani Dental College and Research Centre, Kota, Rajasthan, India

Abstract
Background: The present study was undertaken to evaluate the most suitable recent restorative material for extensively mutilated
teeth.
Aim: This study aims to evaluate and compare the fracture resistance of maxillary premolars with Class II mesio‑occlusal distal
(MOD) cavities restored with recent Ever X posterior, bulk‑fill composite, and Estelite sigma quick composite systems.
Materials and Methods: Sixty human maxillary premolars were selected. Fifteen intact teeth served as positive control (Group 1). MOD
cavities were prepared in the remaining 45 teeth with standardized dimensions and were randomly divided into three experimental
groups (Group 2, 3, and 4) (n = 15). Teeth in Group 2, 3, and 4 were reinforced with 3M ESPE Filtek Bulk‑fill posterior, GC Ever X
posterior, and Tokuyama Estelite sigma quick composites, respectively. Fracture resistance was measured in Newton (N).
Results: Group 4 (1432.60 N) showed the highest mean fracture resistance followed by Group 3 (1326.20 N), Group 1
positive controls (1288.53 N), and Group 2 (946.66N), respectively. One‑way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test revealed
a statistically significant difference between all the groups (P = 0.005). Post hoc Tukey test revealed a statistically significant
difference in mean fracture resistance between the Group 2 and Group 4 (P = 0.004), as well as between the Group 2 and
Group 3 (P = 0.033). However, there were no significant differences among the other groups.
Conclusion: Among the experimental groups, Estelite sigma quick composite showed the highest fracture resistance. Statistically,
a significant difference was seen between all groups.
Keywords: Bulk fills; e glass fibers; fracture resistance; mesio‑occlusal distal cavities; spherical supranano fillers

INTRODUCTION Recent materials such as fiber‑reinforced composites,

bulk‑fill composites, and higher filler content composites
Restoration of extensively carious teeth is one of the are introduced with improved handling properties,
biggest challenges in dentistry. Many types of research reduced polymerization shrinkage, and increased fracture
and advancements on the molecular level are going on to toughness.
overcome the shortcomings such as polymerization shrinkage,
microleakage, water sorption, and technique sensitivity, leading Recently, time‑saving composites are introduced which can
to the evolution of composites with improved properties.[1] be placed in 4–5 mm bulk and cured in one step. Rheology
of bulk fills is such that it allows better adaptation to the
cavity walls with self‑leveling effect.[2]
Address for correspondence:
Prof. Yajuvender Singh Hada, Department of Conservative
Dentistry and Endodontics, Daswani Dental College and Fiberreinforced Ever X posterior composite consists of
Research Centre, IPB‑19, RIICO Institutional Area, Ranpur, the combination of Eglass fibers and barium glass filler,
Kota ‑ 324 009, Rajasthan, India.
E‑mail: coolhadays@rediffmail.com This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms
Date of submission : 09.05.2018 of the Creative Commons Attribution‑NonCommercial‑ShareAlike 4.0
Review completed : 15.06.2018 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work
Date of acceptance : 06.06.2019 non‑commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new
Access this article online creations are licensed under the identical terms.
Quick Response Code: For reprints contact: reprints@medknow.com
Website:
www.jcd.org.in
How to cite this article: Hada YS, Panwar S. Comparison of the
fracture resistance of three different recent composite systems in
DOI: large Class II mesio-occlusal distal cavities: An in vitro study. J
10.4103/JCD.JCD_225_18
Conserv Dent 2019;22:287-91.

© 2019 Journal of Conservative Dentistry | Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 287

[Downloaded free from http://www.jcd.org.in on Wednesday, May 11, 2022, IP: 124.253.23.33]
Hada and Panwar: Fracture resistance of three different recent composite systems
fiber length in millimeter scale is 1–2 mm.[2] Within a
tough polymer matrix fibers helps in stopping the crack
progression same as the function of dentine, rendering it
a perfect material of choice in large size cavities(MOD).[3]
It is basically a dentine replacement composite and needs
to be covered proximally and occlusally with conventional
composite simulating enamel coverage.[4]
Group of new composites Estelite sigma quick with higher
filler loading and spherical supranano zirconia and silica
fillers not just impart improved physical properties but also
made it esthetically demanding, quick curing time enhance
the handling characteristics.[5] Total filler content in Ever X
posterior is 53.6% by weight.[21,23]
Hence, this study aims to evaluate the fracture toughness of
the recent composite materials in severely weakened maxillary
premolars with mesio‑occlusal distal (MOD) cavities. The
objective of the study was to evaluate the fracture resistance
of all the three materials and to find which restorative material
will provide maximum fracture resistance.
The null hypothesis tested will be that there will be no
difference in the fracture resistance of intact teeth and
those restored with different composite materials.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Sixty human maxillary premolars collected from department
oral and maxillofacial surgery which was extracted for
orthodontic reason, were used in the study. Power and the
sample size of the study were calculated by IBM® SPSS®
21 SOFTWARE (IBM, Hong Kong). All the specimens were
scaled to remove the adhering soft tissue and calculus
and were stored in physiologic saline. Fully erupted teeth
with mature apices, intact enamel and dentine without any
carious lesion, restorations, and developmental defects
were included. Teeth with open apices or resorption,
previous restorations, or with any anatomical variation
were excluded from the study.
Fifteen intact teeth were used as positive controls (Group 1).
Standardized MOD cavities was prepared using a tungsten
carbide straight fissure bur (FG 172, KERR Haw, Canada)
in high-speed water-cooled hand piece, bur was changed
after every 10 cavity preparations. Dimensions were
2 mm ± 0.2 mm pulpal width, 1.5 mm ± 0.2 mm gingival
width, and 2 mm ± 0.2 mm buccolingual width and are
verified using periodontal probe.[6] Facial and lingual walls
of the occlusal segment were prepared parallel to each
other with the cavosurface angle at 90° [Figures 1 and 2].
Prepared cavities were air‑dried, and COLTENE Swiss Tec
etchant was used for 10 s, and cavities were rinsed for
30 s and air‑dried.
288 Journal of Conservative Dentistry | Volume 22 | Issue 3 | May-June 2019
Figure 1: Cavity preparation mesial review
3M ESPE Single Bond Universal bonding agent was applied
and cured for 20 s with Dentsply Spectrum curing light.
Tofflemire matrix band was applied for a further composite
restoration.
Subsequently, teeth were randomly divided into three
groups (n = 15).
Group 2:Teeth restored with Filtek 3M ESPE
bulk fill
Bulk‑fill posterior composite was placed in bulk without
any incremental technique and cured for 30 s [Figure 3].
Group 3:Teeth restored with fiber‑reinforced
composite GC Ever X posterior
In this case, walls of the MOD cavities were built by
microhybrid Coltene Swiss Tec composite followed by
placement of Ever X posterior composite in the core. The
restoration was completed by placing a 0.5 mm layer of
microhybrid composite on the occlusal surface[4] [Figure 4].
Group 4:Teeth restored with TOKUYAMA
Estelite sigma quick
Estelite sigma quick composite was placed by incremental
technique and cured for 10 s for each increment [Figure 5].
Manufacturer’s instructions were followed while placing
and curing the composites.
Thermocycling (SD Mechatronik, Germany thermocycler)
was carried out 500 cycles at 5°C ± 2°C–55°C ± 2°C with
30 s dwell time and 5 s transfer time. Then, the specimens
were stored in an incubator (Bioline technology, India) at
37°C and 100% humidity for 24 h. Teeth were mounted in
square blocks of cold cure acrylic resin 2 cm in dimensions
up to 1.5  mm apical to the cement–enamel junction.
A layer of light body elastomeric impression material
was applied around the root surface to simulate the
[Downloaded free from http://www.jcd.org.in on Wednesday, May 11, 2022, IP: 124.253.23.33]

Hada and Panwar: Fracture resistance of three different recent composite systems

Figure 2: Cavity preparation occlusal view Figure 3: Restoration with bulk‑fill posterior

Figure 4: Restoration with Ever X posterior Figure 5: Restoration with Estelite sigma quick

periodontal ligament. The fracture resistance of the teeth
was measured using an Instron India universal testing
machine (model 1011). Each specimen was subjected
to compressive loading using a 5 mm round diameter
stainless steel ball at a strain rate of 2  mm/min. The ball
should contact the inclined planes of the facial and palatal
cusps beyond the margins of the restoration, which will
simulate the tendency of the masticatory forces deflecting
the cusps under stress. The force necessary to fracture the
specimen was recorded in Newton (N), and data obtained
were tabulated and subjected to the statistical analysis
using IBM SPSS Statistics professional software.
RESULTS
between the groups. On intergroup comparisons, Post hoc
Tukey test [Table 3] revealed that there is a statistically
significant difference in mean fracture resistance between
the Group 2 and Group 4 (P = 0.004), as well as between
the Group 2 and Group 3 (P = 0.033). However, there were
no differences between the other groups.
DISCUSSION
Tokuyama Estelite sigma quick is the preferred material
for restoring extensive cavities with the highest mean
fracture resistance (1432.60 N) followed by Ever X Posterior
(1326.20 N), positive controls (1288.53 N), and Bulk‑fill group
(946.66N). Hence, our null hypothesis has got rejected.

Highest mean fracture resistance was observed with
Group 4 Estelite sigma quick (1432.60 N) followed by
Group 3 Ever X posterior (1326.20 N), Group 1 Intact teeth
(1288.53 N), and Group 2 bulkfill posterior composite
(946.66N)[Figure 6]. One‑way ANOVA test [Tables 1 and 2]
revealed a statistically significant difference (P = 0.005)
Fracture is a complete or incomplete break in a material
resulting from the application of excessive force.[7] Fracture
resistance is directly related to the stoppage of the crack
propagation. Masticatory forces have a tendency to deflect
cusps, and composites decrease the deformation of the
cusps under masticatory load.[8,9]

Journal of Conservative Dentistry | Volume 22 | Issue 3 | May-June 2019 289

[Downloaded free from http://www.jcd.org.in on Wednesday, May 11, 2022, IP: 124.253.23.33]

Hada and Panwar: Fracture resistance of three different recent composite systems

Table 1: Mean fracture resistance in Newton (N) in all four groups

n Mean Standard Standard 95% confidence interval for Mean Minimum Maximum
deviation error Lower bound Upper bound
Control 15 1288.5333 236.67575 61.10942 1157.4667 1419.6000 885.00 1675.00
Bulk‑fill Composite 15 946.6667 179.83630 46.43353 847.0766 1046.2567 684.00 1417.00
Ever X Posterior 15 1326.2000 452.28092 116.77843 1075.7352 1576.6648 965.00 2873.00
Estelite Sigma Quick 15 1432.600 503.26432 129.94229 1153.9015 1711.2985 870.00 2791.00

Table 2: Fracture resistance analysis of variance test

Sum of Degree of Mean square F Sig
squares freedom
Between Groups 1989541.933 3 663180.644 4.857 0.005
Within Groups 7646653.067 56 136547.376
Total 9636195.000 59

The variation in strength between different composites

may be explained due to the differences in the chemical
composition of their matrix, filler content, filler size, and
distribution.[9,10] Thus, a reduction in size and increase in
the volume of fillers are directly proportional to an increase
in compressive strength and surface hardness.[10,11]

High filler loading increases the physical and handling
properties of the composites, new adhesive materials
not only seal the margin but also increase the retention
and resistance properties of the restored tooth.[12] Recent
nanofiller technology with nanometric fillers impregnated
in nanoclusters leads to high filler loading resulting in
an increase in high compressive strength and flexural
strength.[13,14]
Bulk filling all of the tooth preparation with a composite
at one time has obvious advantages for both patients and
practitioners. The manufacturers claim that the bulk‑fill
materials can achieve a depth of cure of 6 mm.[15,16] Bulk‑fill
technology not only results in fewer voids in the mass of
the material since all of it is placed at one time but also
would be faster than placing numerous increments.
Filtek™ Bulk Fill Posterior contains two novel
methacrylate monomers that, in combination, act to lower
polymerization stress. A high molecular weight aromatic
urethane dimethacrylate  decreases the number of reactive
groups in the resin. This helps to moderate the volumetric
shrinkage. The addition–fragmentation monomers contain
a third reactive site that cleaves through a fragmentation
process during polymerization. This process provides a
mechanism for the relaxation of the developing network
and subsequent stress relief. The fragments, however,
still retain the capability to react with each other or with
other reactive sites of the developing polymer.[17]
Figure 6: Graphical representation of comparison of mean
fracture resistance of composites
needed to cure the resin with short exposure times
(one‑third of that required by conventional composites)
and requires exposures of 10 s or less. To achieve high
esthetic qualities, it has a suprananofillers 0.2‑μm
mono‑dispersing spherical filler (Si‑Zr). Particle
diameters of 0.2 μm are known to produce the best
balance of material properties and esthetics. Estelite
sigma quick itself resists wearing without causing
unusual wear in opposing teeth. It resists absorbing
stains from substances such as coffee better than
conventional products.[19] It is 82% filled by weight,
which allows it to have excellent strength and durability
to withstand the demands of the posterior dentition
and the harsh environment of the oral cavity.[18]
Fibers incorporated into a composite material greatly
enhances its mechanical property. The fibers present helps
in stopping crack propagation when the stress is transferred
from the matrix to the fibers.[20] Ever X posterior containing
E‑glass fibers of 1–2 mm in length impregnated within the
nanohybrid composite could be used in 4 mm increment. The
difference in fracture toughness between materials may be
due to the inorganic filler loading – 76.5% by weight in bulk‑fill
composites, 53.6% in Ever X posterior, and 82% in Estelite
sigma quick. The highest filler loading in Tokuyama Estelite
sigma quick provides excellent strength and durability.

Radical‑amplified photopolymerization initiator The present results were obtained in optimized laboratory
(RAP technology) is used in Estelite sigma quick. The settings; however, clinical conditions are not similar and
initiator balances the high polymerization activity the aspects such as insertion and handling could have

290 Journal of Conservative Dentistry | Volume 22 | Issue 3 | May-June 2019

[Downloaded free from http://www.jcd.org.in on Wednesday, May 11, 2022, IP: 124.253.23.33]

Hada and Panwar: Fracture resistance of three different recent composite systems

Table 3: Multiple comparisons using post hoc Tukey test

Reference Comparison Mean Difference Standard Significance 95% Confidence Interval
Group (RG) Group (CG) (RG‑CG) error Lower Bound Upper Bound
Control Bulk‑fill composite 341.86667 134.93079 0.066 ‑15.4149 699.1482
Ever x posterior ‑37.86667 134.93079 0.992 ‑394.9482 312.6149
Estelite sigma quick ‑144.06667 134.93079 0.710 ‑501.3482 213.2149
Bulk‑fill Control ‑341.86667 134.93079 0.066 ‑699.1482 14.4149
Composite Ever x posterior ‑379.53333 134.93079 0.033 ‑736.8149 ‑22.2518
Estelite sigma quick ‑485.93333 134.93079 0.004 ‑843.2129 ‑128.6518
Ever X Control 37.86667 134.93079 0.992 ‑319.6149 394.9482
Posterior Bulk‑fill composite 379.53333 134.93079 0.033 22.2518 736.8149
Estelite sigma quick ‑106.40000 134.93079 0.859 ‑463.6815 250.8815
Estelite Control 0.06667 134.93079 0.710 ‑213.2149 501.3482
Sigma Quick Bulk‑fill composite 485.93333. 134.93079 0.004 128.6518 843.2149
Ever x posterior 106.40000 134.93079 0.859 ‑250.8815 463.6815

a potential effect on the mechanical properties of the Advisor; 2014.

materials and their performance.
Maxillary premolars were chosen as they are more prone
to fracture due to the anatomical shape with steep
cuspal inclines which leads to cuspal separation during
mastication.[4] MOD cavities were prepared in the teeth as
these are considered to be the worst in terms of fracture
resistance.[22]
Any relevant study could not be found comparing bulk‑fill
posterior composite, Ever X posterior along with Estelite
sigma quick, and hence, the results of the study cannot be
substantiated with those of any other studies.
CONCLUSION
Within the limitations of this study, maximum fracture
resistance is shown by the Tokuyama Estelite sigma quick
composite.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
REFERENCES
1. Cötert HS, Sen BH, Balkan M. In vitro comparison of cuspal fracture
resistances of posterior teeth restored with various adhesive restorations.
Int J Prosthodont 2001;14:374‑8.
2. Moorthy A, Hogg CH, Dowling AH, Grufferty BF, Benetti AR,
Fleming  GJ. Cuspal deflection and microleakage in premolar teeth
restored with bulk‑fill flowable resin‑based composite base materials.
J Dent 2012;40:500‑5.
3. Aniket K, Shweta T, Rajkumar B, Vishesh G. Comparative evaluation of
fracture resistance of fibre reinforced composite, flowable composite
and a core build‑up material. Int J Curr Res 2016;6:378‑81.
4. Bilgi PS, Shah NC, Patel PP, Vaid S. Fracture resistance of endodontically
treated teeth restored with nanohybrid, silorane, and fibre reinforced
composite. J Conserv Dent 2016;4:364‑367.
5. Estelite Sigma Quick 5‑year Clinical Performance Report. The Dental
6. St. Georges AJ, Sturdevant JR, Swift EJ Jr., Thompson JY. Fracture
resistance of prepared teeth restored with bonded inlay restorations.
J Prosthet Dent 2003;89:551‑7.
7. Schultrich B. Strength of cemented carbides, in mechanical properties
of brittle materials, in modern theories and experimental evidence.
J Biomed Res 2011;25:418‑24.
8. Jagadish S, Yogesh BG. Fracture resistance of teeth with class 2 silver
amalgam, posterior composite, and glass cermet restorations. Oper
Dent 1990;15:42‑7.
9. Johnson EW, Castaldi CR, Gau DJ, Wysocki GP. Stress pattern variations
on operatively prepared human teeth studied by three‑ dimensional
photo‑elasticity. J Dent Res 1968;97:1075‑8.
10. Bonilla ED, Mardirossian G, Caputo AA. Fracture toughness of posterior
resin composites. Quintessence Int 2001;32:206‑10.
11. Adabo GL, dos Santos Cruz CA, Fonseca RG, Vaz LG. The volumetric
fraction of inorganic particles and the flexural strength of composites for
posterior teeth. J Dent 2003;31:353‑9.
12. Sabbagh J, Ryelandt L, Bachérius L, Biebuyck JJ, Vreven J,
Lambrechts P, et al. Characterization of the inorganic fraction of resin
composites. J Oral Rehabil 2004;31:1090‑101.
13. Willems G, Lambrechts P, Braem M, Celis JP, Vanherle G. A classification
of dental composites according to their morphological and mechanical
characteristics. Dent Mater 1992;8:310‑9.
14. Bremer BD, Geurtsen W. Molar fracture resistance after adhesive
restoration with ceramic inlays or resin‑based composites. Am J Dent
2001;14:216‑20.
15. Mitra SB, Wu D, Holmes BN. An application of nanotechnology in
advanced dental materials. J Am Dent Assoc 2003;134:1382‑90.
16. de Moraes RR, Gonçalves Lde S, Lancellotti AC, Consani S,
Correr‑Sobrinho L, Sinhoreti MA, et al. Nanohybrid resin composites:
Nanofiller loaded materials or traditional microhybrid resins? Oper Dent
2009;34:551‑7.
17. Czasch P, Ilie N. In vitro comparison of mechanical properties and
degree of cure of bulk fill composites. Clin Oral Investig 2013;17:227‑35.
18. Ilie  N, Stark  K. Curing behaviour of high‑viscosity bulk‑fill composites.
J Dent 2014;42:977‑85.
19. 3M FiltekTM Bulk Fill. Posterior Restorative. Technical Product Profile.
Available from: http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/984592O/filtek-
bulk-fill-posterior-re. [Last accessed on 2018 May 15].
20. Tokuyama Sigma Estellite Quick. Technical Product Profile. Available
from: https://www.tokuyama-us.com/wp-content/uploads/resources/
Estelite-Sigma-Quick-Product.pdf. [Last accessed on 2018 May 11].
21. Jain A, Sonkusre S, Tavane PN, Singh A, Gupta P, Nayak BG, et al.
Evaluation of microleakage between silorane 2011;42:579-87.
22. Abouelleil H, Pradelle N, Villat C, Attik N, Colon P, Grosgogeat B, et al.
Comparison of mechanical properties of a new fiber reinforced composite
and bulk filling composites. Restor Dent Endod 2015;40:262‑70.
23. GC Ever X Posterior. Technical Product Profile. Available from: https://
www.tokuyama-us.com/wp-content/uploads/resources/Estelite-Sigma-
Quick-Product.pdf. [Last accessed on 2018 May 11].

Journal of Conservative Dentistry | Volume 22 | Issue 3 | May-June 2019 291