Restorative Resins
Restorative Resins
Restorative Resins
RESTORATIVE RESINS
INDEX
Aesthetic restorative materials
Composite restorative materials
Curing of resin-based composites
Classification of resin based composites
Composites for posterior restorations
Use of composite for resin veneers
Finishing of composites
Biocompatibility of composites
Repair of composites
Survival probability of composites
HISTORY
20th century-silicates only tooth-colored aesthetic material.
Acrylic resins replaced silicates in1940s because of their aesthetics
insolubility in oral fluids low cost and ease of manipulation
Excessive thermal expansion and contraction stresses develop
Problem solved by addition of quartz
Early composites based on PMMA not successful
A major advancement made after introduction of bis-GMA by Dr ray
l. bowen in 1950,s
1
TYPES:
BASED ON CURING MECHANISM
o Chemically activated
o Light activated
BASED ON SIZE OF FILLER PARTICLES
o Conventional 8-12 um
o Small particle 1-5 um
o Microfilled
0.04-0.4 um
o Hybrid
0.6-1.0 um
DENTAL COMPOSITES
RESIN MATRIX:
Mostly blend of aromatic/aliphatic dimethacrylate monomers such
as BISGMA,TEGDMA,UDMA.
FILLER :
Based on the type of filler particles composites are currently
classified as micro hybrid and micro filled products.
COLLOIDAL SILICA
o
o
o
o
o
COUPLING AGENT:
o Bond filler particles to resin.
o Allows for transfer of stresses to stiffer filler particles.
FUNCTIONS:
o Improve physical and mechanical properties.
4
INHIBITORS
Inhibitors are added to the resin to minimise or prevent
spontaneous or accidental polymerization of monomers
A typical inhibitor is butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) used in
concentration of 0.01 wt%.
OPTICAL MODIFIERS
o Dental composites must have visual shading and transluscency
for a natural appearance.
o Shading is achieved by adding pigments usually metal oxide
particles
o All optical modifiers affect light transmission through a
composite.
o Darker shades and greater opacities have a decreased depth of
light curing ability.
o Titanium dioxide and aluminum oxide most commonly used.
POLYMERIZATION MECHANISM
2 TYPES
Chemically activated
Light-activated
CHEMICALLY ACTIVATED COMPOSITE SYSTEM
5
10
11
MICROFILLED COMPOSITES
Developed to overcome surface roughness of conventional composites
11
12
COMPOSITION
o Smoother surface is due to the incorporation of microfillers.
o Colloidal silica is used as the microfiller
o 200300 times smaller than the average particle in traditional
composites
o Filler particles consists of pulverised composite filler particles
PROPERTIES :
o Inferior physical and mechanical properties to those of
o
o
o
o
traditional composites
40 80 % of the restorative material is made up of resin
Increased surface smoothness
Areas of proximal contact- Tooth drifting
Compressive strength250- 350 Mpa.
13
14
o Esthetics
Better surface smoothness than conventional because of
small and highly packed fillers
o Radiopacity
Composites containing heavy metal glasses as fillers are
radio-opaque which is an important property in restoration of
posterior teeth
CLINICAL CONSIDERATIONS
o In stress bearing areas such as class 4 and class 2 restorations
o Resin of choice for aesthetic restoration of anterior teeth
o For restoring sub gingival areas
HYBRID COMPOSITE
Developed in an effort to obtain even better surface
smoothness than that provided by the small particle composite.
COMPOSITION
2 kinds of fillerso Colloidal silica present in higher concentrations 10 20 wt %
o Heavy metal glasses Constituting 75 %
o Average particle size 0.4 1.0 m
PROPERTIES
o Range between conventional and small particle
o Superior to microfilled composites
14
15
FLOWABLE COMPOSITES
Modification of SPF and Hybrid composites.
Reduced filler level
CLINICAL CONSIDERATIONSClass 1 restorations in gingival areas.
15
16
PACKABLE COMPOSITES
o
o
o
o
o
1990s
Elongated fibrous,filler particles of about 100m
Time consumingInferior in stength when compared to amalgam
Problems in use of composites for posterior restoration
In class 5 restoration where gingival margin is located in
cementum or dentin.
o Marginal leakage
o Time consuming
o Composites wear faster than amalgam
INDICATIONS
o Esthetics
o Allergic to mercury
o To minimse thermal conduction
16
17
18
o
o
o
o
19
20
SANDWICH TECHNIQUE
o Composite does not bond adequately to dentin.
o Bond to dentin improved by placing GIC liner between
composite and dentin.
INDICATIONS :
o Lesions where one or more margins are in dentin.
eg cervical lesions.
o Class II composite restorations.
20
21
CORES
o
o
o
o
o
BIOCOMPATIBILITY
o Relatively biocompatible.
21
22
SUMMARY
Amalgam continues to be the best posterior restorative material :-o
o
o
o
o
Ease of use.
Low cost.
Wear resistance.
Freedom from shrinkage during setting.
High survival probabilities
REFERENCES
22
23
23