Volume 03 Issue 05-2023
27
International Journal of Medical Sciences And Clinical Research
(ISSN
–
2771-2265)
VOLUME
03
ISSUE
05
P
AGES
:
27-30
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
694
)
(2022:
5.
893
)
(2023:
6.
184
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
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 configuration, Filtek P60, Tetric N-Ceram, SureFil, Charisma.
Research Article
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF
PACKABLE COMPOSITES WITH DIFFERENT CAVITY CONFIGURATIONS:
AN IN VITRO STUDY
Submission Date:
May 13, 2023,
Accepted Date:
May 18, 2023,
Published Date:
May 23, 2023
Crossref doi:
https://doi.org/10.37547/ijmscr/Volume03Issue05-05
Humanaz Naved
Professor, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, M.A. Rangoonwala College of Dental
Sciences and Research Centre Pune, India
Sameer Hegde
professor, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, M.A. Rangoonwala College of Dental
Sciences and Research Centre Pune, India
Journal
Website:
https://theusajournals.
com/index.php/ijmscr
Copyright:
Original
content from this work
may be used under the
terms of the creative
commons
attributes
4.0 licence.
Volume 03 Issue 05-2023
28
International Journal of Medical Sciences And Clinical Research
(ISSN
–
2771-2265)
VOLUME
03
ISSUE
05
P
AGES
:
27-30
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
694
)
(2022:
5.
893
)
(2023:
6.
184
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
INTRODUCTION
Packable composites are widely used for direct
restoration of posterior teeth. The compressive
strength of these materials is an important factor in
their clinical performance, as it affects their ability to
withstand occlusal forces. Cavity configuration is
another critical factor that can affect the compressive
strength of packable composites. This in vitro study
aims to compare the compressive strength of different
packable
composites
with
different
cavity
configurations. Direct restorations of posterior teeth
are commonly performed using packable composites.
The clinical performance of these materials depends on
their mechanical properties, including compressive
strength, which affects their ability to withstand
occlusal forces. Various factors can affect the
compressive strength of packable composites,
including cavity configuration, which can significantly
affect the distribution and direction of occlusal forces.
The ideal cavity design should provide a balance
between the structural integrity of the tooth and the
material's ability to withstand occlusal forces.
Therefore, the selection of appropriate packable
composites and cavity configurations is critical to the
long-term success of posterior restorations. In this
study, we aimed to compare the compressive strength
of different packable composites with different cavity
configurations, providing valuable information to
guide clinicians in the selection of suitable materials
and cavity designs for posterior restorations.
METHODS
Sixty standardized resin blocks with cavities of
different configurations were fabricated using a dental
surveyor and milling machine. The cavities were
randomly divided into four groups and restored using
four different packable composites: Filtek P60, Tetric
N-Ceram, SureFil, and Charisma. Compressive strength
was measured using a universal testing machine. The
data were analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc
test.
Sample Preparation:
Sixty resin blocks (10 mm x 10 mm x 10 mm) were
prepared using a polyvinyl siloxane mold. Three
different cavity configurations were prepared in the
resin blocks: Class I (4 mm diameter x 3 mm depth),
Class II (4 mm diameter x 3 mm depth with a 2 mm wide
isthmus), and cylindrical (4 mm diameter x 3 mm
depth). Twenty resin blocks were prepared for each
cavity configuration.
Composite Restoration:
Four different packable composites were used in this
study: Filtek P60, Tetric N-Ceram, SureFil, and
Charisma. Ten resin blocks for each cavity
Volume 03 Issue 05-2023
29
International Journal of Medical Sciences And Clinical Research
(ISSN
–
2771-2265)
VOLUME
03
ISSUE
05
P
AGES
:
27-30
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
694
)
(2022:
5.
893
)
(2023:
6.
184
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
configuration were randomly assigned to each
composite group. The composites were placed in the
cavities in two increments, each cured for 40 seconds
using a light-curing unit. After the final increment was
cured, the restorations were finished using a finishing
bur and polishing disks.
Compressive Strength Testing:
The compressive strength of each restoration was
measured using a universal testing machine with a 5
mm diameter stainless steel ball as the loading tip. The
resin blocks were placed in a custom-made jig with the
loading tip placed in the center of the restoration. The
load was applied at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min
until failure occurred. The maximum load at failure was
recorded, and the compressive strength was
calculated by dividing the maximum load by the
surface area of the restoration.
Statistical Analysis:
Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) followed by Tukey's post-hoc test. The level
of significance was set at p < 0.05.
RESULTS
The highest compressive strength was observed in the
Filtek P60 group, followed by the Tetric N-Ceram,
Charisma, and SureFil groups. The difference in
compressive strength between Filtek P60 and the
other composites was statistically significant (p <
0.05). Cavity configuration had a significant effect on
compressive strength, with cylindrical cavities showing
higher compressive strength compared to Class I and
Class II cavities.
CONCLUSION
Filtek P60 and Tetric N-Ceram exhibited higher
compressive strength compared to SureFil and
Charisma. 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.
REFERENCES
1. 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
2. Hamoudaa IM, Shehatab SH. Fracture resistance of
posterior teeth restored with modern restorative
materials. J Biomed Research 2011,25(6):418-424
3. Leinfelder KF. A conservative approach to placing
posterior composite resin restorations. J Am Dent
Assoc 1996;127: 743
‑
8
Volume 03 Issue 05-2023
30
International Journal of Medical Sciences And Clinical Research
(ISSN
–
2771-2265)
VOLUME
03
ISSUE
05
P
AGES
:
27-30
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
694
)
(2022:
5.
893
)
(2023:
6.
184
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
4. 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
6. Abuelenain DA, Neel EAA and Al-Dharrab A. Surface
and Mechanical Properties of Different Dental
Composites. Austin J Dent. 2015;2(2): 1019
7. Clark D. Introducing the Clark Class I and II
restoration. Oral Health 2009. p. 82
‑
91
8. 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
9. 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
10. Albers HF. Tooth Coloured Restorations. 8th ed.
Santa Rosa: Alta Books; 1997
11. 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
12. 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.
