The physical properties of packable and conventional posterior resin-basedcomposites: A comparison

Background. The authors compared the physical properties of three packable hybrid resin-based composites with those of a conventional hybrid and a mic rofill composite material advocated for use as posterior restorative materi als. They evaluated diametral tensile strength, of DTS; compressive strengt h, of CS; flexural strength, or FS; and depth of cure, of DC. Methods. The authors studied the following resin-based restorative material s: three packable composites, Alert Condensable Composite (Jeneric Pentron) , SureFil High Density Posterior Restorative (Dentsply Caulk) and Solitaire (Heraeus Kulzer); one conventional hybrid composite, TPH Spectrum (Dentspl y Caulk); and one microfill, Heliomolar Radiopaque (Ivoclar-Vivadent). The authors evaluated DTS, CS, FS and DC, according to American National Standa rds Institute criteria. They made scanning electron micrographs of the pack able resin-based composites. Results. Results demonstrated that the conventional hybrid, TPH Spectrum, h ad significantly greater DTS and FS than other resin-based composites. Aler t and SureFil had comparable DTS and FS, which were significantly greater t han Heliomolar's DTS and FS. Solitaire had significantly lower DTS and FS t han all other resin-based composites. SureFil had the highest CS, followed by TPH Spectrum, Solitaire and Alert, which were comparable and had signifi cantly greater CS than Heliomolar. TPH Spectrum and Alert had significantly greater DC than all other resin-based composites, followed in decreasing o rder by SureFil, Solitaire and Heliomolar. Conclusion. While the packable composites tested in this study had physical properties superior to those of the microfill composite, they were no bett er suited for use as a posterior restorative material than was the conventi onal hybrid resin-based composite. Clinical Implications. Packable composites may be easier for clinicians to handle than conventional resin-based composites; however, their physical pr operties were not superior to those of the conventional small-particle hybr id resin-based composite. In addition, these materials may have the clinica l drawback of increased wear and surface roughness that was seen with early , large-particle composite restorative materials.