A COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF NEWER COMPOSITE MATERIALS IN DIRECT RESTORATIONS: CLINICAL AND LABORATORY PERSPECTIVES

Main Article Content

Dr. Deepti Upadhyay
Dr. Sanchit Tiwari
Dr. Amit Kumar

Keywords

composite materials, direct restorations, nanohybrid composites, bulk-fill composites, clinical evaluation, laboratory testing

Abstract

Background: This study evaluates the performance of newer composite materials in direct dental restorations from both clinical and laboratory perspectives. Advances in composite technology have focused on improving aesthetic outcomes, mechanical properties, and biocompatibility.
Objective: The aim of this study was to assess and compare the physical, mechanical, and clinical performance of these materials.
Methods: A mixed-method approach involving clinical trials on 80 patients and laboratory evaluations was conducted from June 2018 to June 2019. Materials tested included nanohybrid, bulk-fill, microfilled, and universal composites. Clinical performance was assessed through patient satisfaction, aesthetic outcomes, and restoration longevity. Laboratory testing focused on compressive strength, flexural strength, and wear resistance.
Results: The results demonstrated significant variations in performance based on composition and application. Nanohybrid composites showed superior aesthetics and wear resistance, while bulk-fill composites excelled in compressive strength. Microfilled composites offered good polishability but lower mechanical strength, and universal composites provided balanced performance.
Conclusion: Findings emphasize the importance of material selection for optimal restorative outcomes based on clinical requirements.

Abstract 22 | PDF Downloads 8

References

1. Ferracane JL. Resin composite—State of the art. Dent Mater. 2011;27(1):29-38.
2. Mitra SB, Wu D, Holmes BN. An application of nanotechnology in advanced dental materials. J Am Dent Assoc. 2003;134(10):1382-90.
3. Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Loomans BA, Huysmans MC. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res. 2010;89(10):1063-8.
4. Braga RR, Ballester RY, Ferracane JL. Factors involved in the development of polymerization shrinkage stress in resin-composites: A systematic review. Dent Mater. 2005;21(10):962-70.
5. Ilie N, Hickel R. Investigations on a methacrylate-based flowable composite based on the SDR technology. Dent Mater. 2011;27(4):348-55.
6. Tolidis K, Nobecourt A, Randall RC. Effect of a new matrix formulation on the polymerization shrinkage of dental composite resins. J Dent. 1998;26(5-6):437-44.
7. Yap AU, Sau CW, Lye KW. Effects of aging on the hardness and strength of dental composites. Dent Mater. 2001;17(1):62-71.
8. Manhart J, Chen H, Hamm G, Hickel R. Buonocore memorial lecture. Clinical evaluation of posterior restorations: 10-year results. J Dent. 2004;32(5):395-407.
9. Sarrett DC. Clinical challenges and the relevance of materials testing for posterior composite restorations. Dent Mater. 2005;21(1):9-20.
10. Sturdevant JR, Roberson TM, Heymann HO, Swift EJ. Sturdevant’s Art and Science of Operative Dentistry. 6th ed. Elsevier; 2013.
11. Cramer NB, Stansbury JW, Bowman CN. Recent advances and developments in composite dental restorative materials. J Dent Res. 2011;90(4):402-16.
12. van Dijken JW. Direct resin composite inlays/onlays: An 11-year follow-up. J Dent. 2010;38(7):569-76.
13. Alrahlah A, Silikas N, Watts DC. Post-cure depth of cure of bulk fill dental resin-composites. Dent Mater. 2014;30(2):149-54.
14. Xu HH, Weir MD, Sun L. Nanocomposites with Ca and PO4 release: Effects of reinforcement, dicalcium phosphate particle size and silanization. Dent Mater. 2007;23(12):1482-91.
15. Dickens SH, Stansbury JW, Choi KM, Floyd CJ. Photopolymerization kinetics of methacrylate dental resins. Macromolecules. 2003;36(16):6043-53.