Dent Mater8:310-319, September,1992

A classification of dental composites according to their

morphological and mechanical characteristics
G. Willems ~, P. Lambrechts ~, M. Braem 2, J. P. Celis 3, G. Vanherle 1

1Department of Operative Dentistry and Dental Materials, Katholieke Unwers~teitte Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
2Dental Propedeut~cs, Universitair Centrum Antwerpen (RUCA), Antwerp, Belgium
3Department of Metallurgy and Materials Engineering (MTM), Katholieke Universite~tte Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

Abstract. The on-going search for a biologically acceptable

restorative material has brought a confusing variety of composites
on the dental market. In the present study, commercially available
composites are categorized as a function of their mean particle
size, filler distribution, filler content, Young's modulus, surface
roughness, compressive strength, surface hardness, and filler
morphology. Out of th~sinformation, it can be concluded that the
materials of choice for restoring postenor cavit,es at present are
the Ultrafine Compact-Filled Composites because their ~ntrinsic
surface roughness, Young's modulus and, indirectly, their filler
content, compressive strength, and surface hardness are comparable to the same properties of enamel and dentin. The Ultrafine
Midway-Filled Compos,tes seem to be very sat,sfactory matenals
for antenor use.
INTRODUCTION
The increased need for esthetic tooth-colored restorative
materials has brought a confusing variety of composites onto
the dental market. The on-going search for a biologically
acceptable material that not only has physical and mechanical properties similar to natural tooth tissues but also is
economically and manipulatively equivalent to amalgam has
dramatically increased the number of dental composites
available.
To keep track of recently developed materials and to
categorize others, several classifications have been proposed.
The American Dental Association described two categories of
direct filling resins in Specification No. 27 (Council on Dental
Materials, American Dental Association, 1977). More elaborate rankings are based on the specific filler-size distribution
and amount of incorporated filler (Lutz and Phillips, 1983;
Albers, 1985; Leinfelder, 1985) as well as on filler appearance
and composition (Hosoda et al., 1990).
Filler content and size were shown to directly determine
the physical and mechanical properties of composite materials (Lietal., 1985; Braemetal., 1989; Chung, 1990; Chung and
Greener, 1990), ofwhichthe dynamicYoung's modulus (Braem,
1985; Braem et al., 1986), surface hardness (Craig, 1989) and
intrinsic surface roughness (Willems et al., 1991a) seem to be
the most clinically relevant for their mechanical performance.
The purpose of the present study was to rank most of the
commercially available composites as a function of their mean
particle size, filler size distribution, filler content, Young's

310 Wlllems et al /Classlhcatlon of dental composztes

modulus, surface roughness, surface hardness, compressive

strength, and scanning electron microscope (SEM) appearance.

MATERIALSAND METHODS
Table I lists the 89 commercially available composites investigated in this study. Approximately 3 g of each composite was
dissolved in acetone pro analysi (ACS, ISO, 14.100; Merck,
Darmstadt, Germany), mixed and centrifuged for 30 rain at
3000 rpm. The remaining solution of acetone and dissolved
resin was carefully removed by pipette aspiration without
agitating the centrifuged filler particles. This procedure was
then repeated a second time to completely remove remnants
of resin matrix. The supernatant was again removed and the
remaining filler particles dried at 37C for 12 h. Finally, the
powder was ultrasonically agitated to reduce agglomeration of
filler particles. All powders were screened under SEM (PSEM
500, Phillips, Eindhoven, The Netherlands) to confirm complete filler isolation and to investigate filler morphology.
A computer-controlled apparatus (Coulter LS Series 100,
Coulter Electronics Inc., Hialeah, FL, USA), using laserdiffraction technology (laser light of 750 nm), was used to
determine particle size distribution. This equipment can
analyze a sample with a particle range of 0.4 to 800 ~m. Light
is diffracted around a particle at angles inversely proportional
to the size of the particle. The smaller the particle, the greater
will be the angle of diffraction (Fig. 1A). Most laser-diffraction
particle-size analyzers have only a single optical system (Fig.
1B ) for collecting and sensing diffracted light. Since one optical
system is not capable of capturing the full range of diffracted
light (from very large to very small particles), the collecting
lens must be changed or adjusted when diffraction angles
exceed the lens capabilities. Multiple optical detection systems (Fig. 1C) allow the particle-size analyzer to simultaneously capture the diffracted light of a wide range of particles
varying in size from 0.4 to 800 pro. The diffracted light is
collected by a Fourier lens, which focuses the light up to about
15 on two sets of detectors, one for low-angle scattering and
the other for mid-angle scattering. Another Fourier lens
system (multiple optical detection systems) collects the diffracted light from about 10 to 35 and focuses it onto a third
set of high-angle detectors (Fig. 1C).
A high-volume pump pushes the particles through the

TABLE 1: ALPHABETIC LIST OF MANUFACTURERS

MANUFACTURER
CITY,STATE/COUNTRY
3M
St Paul, MN, USA
Bayer
Dormagen, Germany
B~sco

Lombard, IL, USA

Caulk Dentsply
Milford, DE, USA
Coltene
Altstatten, Switzerland
Den-Mat
Santa Mana, CA, USA
Dental Composite L]D
Kent, England
DentaI-Matenai
Gesellschaft MBH
Hamburg, Germany
Espe
Seefeld, Germany
GC
Tokyo, Japan
Jenenc/Pentron
Walhngford, CT, USA
Johnson & Johnson
East Windsor, NJ, USA
Kanebo
Tokyo, Japan
Kerr
Basel, Switzerland
Kulzer
Fnednchsdorf, Germany

Brand Name
BatchNo
Concise,
P-10, P-30,
P-30 APC, P-50 APC,
Silar,
Silux,
Silux Plus, Valux,Z-100
A1994/81994,112983, EXP LOT 5, 5E35P/5G81P, E8JD03/1DX2, A8601/B8601,0411835502U4Y30AM2*/9BR2D, 6G1, 5904A2
Lumlfor,
Pekafill,
Pekalux
5508E,
O165F,
2038D/2045D/4090S
Bis-Frl I,
BIs-FII M,
BIs-FIIP
068307,
108259,
078219/039111
B~ogloss, FuI-F~I, FuI-FdComp, Pnsma APH, Prisma-Fd, Pnsma-F~lComp, Pnsma-MJcrofine, Pnsma-M~crofineComp,
1113862,
880418
840522, 1007873, 880919,
101588/021489,0903875, 880614,
Bnlhant Lux
Bnlhant,
Brilliant Dentin,
BnlhantD~rectInlay,
030489-08
150584-36,
010988-0203-90, 120489-18,
Marathon,
Perfection
249010/247019, 285017
Gem-CCI,
Gem-Dte I
B0989450/C0589421, 0989451
Superlux Molar, Superlux Solar
00938.
01O84

N;met~c,
N~met~cDJspers,
Pertac Hybrid, VlsJoDispers, Vlslo FII,
V~slo Molar Radfopaque
0014 L157,
L139 009 + 012,
0008,
0105,
0204,
0004
Epohte 100,
Graft LC,
MIcrorest AP, Occlusm,
Opalux
B221181 C251081, 221281/211281/050192, 230241,
413624#5/1/SM40, EA140/UM120
Conquest DFC, PostComp II
180931.
860832
AdaptJc,
Adaptic II,
Adaptlc LCM,
Adaptlc RadJopaque, Answer,
Aurafill, Certarn,
Mlradapt
053183 3A001, 8E5103/8J5107,8G1403/112988B, 840514 CH-B4135. 201804/21300, L604170,0217849/3L1604,2D951/1E951
Bell FJrm
1ND3N
Command Ultrafine,
Hercuhte Condensable, HercuhteXR
1 841286 BS U 30344, 041385 0779 5 0787, EXP 1092/O 1275
Chansma,
Durafrll,
Durafill VS,
Estlc Microfill,
Estrlux Hybrid VS, Estdux Postenor,
931231 021/94063022, 300692 161,311291 030,
0684 045P + 131 C, 300692 33,
83 I61,
Estrlux Posterior CVS,
Estdux Posterior XR1,
Estllux Posterior XR2, Multff~llVS
300692 33/300691 2021/311291 22, 061984034,
83 027,
311291 025/300691
Kuraray
Clearfil,
Clearfil Lustre, ClearfilPhoto Postenor, Clearfil Ray, Clearfil Ray Posterior, Photo Clearfil A
Osaka, Japan
43005 BFXC-0204 + CFXC-0104,17-17106/17107A, HPS 1001,
1100B,
1018,
HAS 1004
Lee Pharmaceuticals
Restolux SP-4
South El Monte, CA, USA 9310RP1D0
Pierre Roland
Amalux, Amalux2,
AmaluxSintergel NC, Smterlux2
Amiens, France
40536,
61039,
40536,
70293
Tokuyama Soda Co LTD Palfique Estelite, Palfique Lrte, PalfiqueLJte Posterior
Tokyo, Japan
EU 206,
LU 205,
PU 601
Vwadent
Hehomolar, Hehomolar Radlopaque, HehoProgress, HehosJt,
Isomolar,
Isopast
Schaan, liechtenstein
050384,
470201/452801,
452901,
22 1C-1D-2B 020584, B 551183 + C701183, 22 B430484 + C370484

TABLE 2: REFRACTIVE INDEXES OF FILLER PARTICLES

Zirconrum Glass
Ytterbium trffluonde
Quartz

1 520
1 530
1 540

Banum
Strontium Glass

1 550
1 550

Barrumborosdicate
Polystyrene Latex

1 554
1 650

diffraction sample cell four times a minute and keeps heavier

particles in suspension. During testing, an ultrasonic mixer
maximizes dispersion. As the sample particles move through
the cell, the laser light passing through it is directed on the
particles for measurement and is diffracted from each particle
and then collected by the optical detection system.
This diffraction method, also known as the Fraunhofer
optical model (Coulter Electronics Inc.), makes use of the
diffraction pattern formed when a beam of light falls onto a
particle. The Fraunhofer optical model is, however, relatively
inaccurate for particles of 3 pm or less. Small particles have
Dental Matenals/September 1992 311

TABLE 3: DENSIFIEDCOMPOSITES:MIDWAY-FILLED

PRODUCTS

MPS

Mo

Ra

Y-Mod

Vol%A

Vol%B

CS

HV

0.9
08
08

0 21
0.12
0.12

3.9
3.1
2.0
1.8
10.0
18
1.2
28
35

0 34

14,803
14,871
16,042
14,060
17,511
15,190
16,586
17,176
14,451
15,821
13,208
15,514
16,079
13,644

52.5
52.6
55 2
50 7
58 1
53.3
56.3
57 5
51 7
54 7
48.6
54 0
55 3
49.7

49.9
58.0
57 0
59.4
68 5
51.9
53.9
56 5
49.8
55 2
54.8
55 2
70.0

344
414
397
417
483
350
328
342
330
377

87
65
74
81
95
73

Ultrafine Midway-Filled Composites

Command Ultrafine*
Herculite condensable
HercuhteXR
Charisma
Conquest DFC
Biogloss*
Bnlliant*
Brilliant Direct Inlay
Brilhant Lux*
Bnlliant Dentin
Lumlfor*
Pekafill
Post Comp II LC
PnsmaAPH

1.1
09
10
07
0.8
3.4
2.8
2.2
21
3.6
20
1.7
2.7
3.1

0.20
0.19
0.11
0 21
0.29

345
383

85
70
84
84
84
97
77

Fine Midway-Filled Composites

52.3
372
87
FuI-Fil compules
60
81
0 39
13,842
50 2
FuI-Fil*
60
8.1
0.50
14,465
51 7
52.8
97
Pertac Hybnd
4.2
81
15,062
53 1
61.0
450
126
61.8
117
Gem-CCI
76
11.2
0.94
18,487
59 9
Gem-bte I
93
12.4
0.46
64 4
144
Pnsma-Fil Compules
84
12.4
0 68
13,362
49.0
51 0
353
79
52.0
83
Prisma-Rl*
7.3
10 0
0 60
14,251
51.2
Superlux Molar
5.5
43
13,984
50 6
60.0
343
90
MPS. meanparticlesize(~tm);Mo: modeof the particlesizedistribution (~tm),Ra intrinsicsurfaceroughness(~tm),Y-Mod.Young'sModulusof elasticity(MPa),VoI% A
inorganic filler volume percentage as calculated according to Braem (1985), VoI%B: inorganicfiller volume percentage as obtained from the manufacturers; CS:
compressivestrength (MPa);HV: Vlckers Hardness(kg/mm2),*Young's modulusdata taken from Braem (1985)

A
S
E
R

HdoulrLsztm
oneatlnt~ ~
A

0
E

H~oulTsm
~lzoennatll
A

~~~ETECTOa~.~

C
Fig. 1. LLghtISdiffracted around a particle at angles inversely proportional to the size
of the particle. The smaller the particle, the greater will be the angle of diffraction (A).
Most laser diffraction particle mzers have only a single optical system (B) for
collecting and sensing diffracted light. Therefore, the collecting lens must be
changed or adjusted when diffraction angles exceed lens capabilities. Multiple
optical detection systems (C) allow the Coulter LS Series particle slzer to capture
simultaneously the diffracted light of a wide range of particles varying in size from
0.4 to 800 ilm.
312 Wtflems et al./Classlhcatton of dental composites

high diffraction angles and sometimes diffracted light is

erroneously detected by the optical detection system. Therefore, to compensate for this error, the control-computer enabled the operator to calculate a new optical model as a
function of the real and imaginary refractive index of sample
particles and medium distilled water) when 20 vol% or more
of the sample particles appeared to be smaller than 3 ~tm.This
process is computer-controlledand is necessary to increase the
accuracy of the determination of the particle size distribution.
Table 2 lists the refractive indexes of filler particles obtained
from manufacturers and used for calculating these specific
optical models.
The accuracy of the particle size analyzer was checked by
means of polymer latex particles with a known refractive
index (Polystyrene Latex, Coulter Electronics Inc.) intended
for this purpose. Their mean particle diameter and standard
deviation of 1.14_+0.72 ~m was very accurately reproduced.
The mean particle sizes (MPS) for the studied composites are
given in Tables 3 to 8, together with the mode of filler
distribution (Mo). This is the particle size whose frequency of
occurrence is greatest.
For several test materials (marked with an asterisk in
Tables 3 to 8), the dynamic Young~smodulus was determined
non-destructively by Braem (1985) and Braem et al. (1986).
This study used the same sample preparation and technique
to determine the Young's modulus for the more recent materials. Braem (1985) has proposed a phenomenological model
for dental composites given by Eq. 1:
E = 3,103.33 e 002977172ox
(1)
where E is the Young's modulus and X is the percentage of

TABLE4: DENSIFIEDCOMPOSITES COMPACT-FILLED

PRODUCTS

~~pact-Filled
Adapt~c II
P-30*
P-30 APC
P-50 APC
Palfique L~tePosterior
Valux
Z-100

MPS

Mo

Ra

Y-Mod

Vol%A

Vol%B

CS

HV

3.9
73
25
12
59
23
08

0.48
0 67
0 71
0 48

21,876
23,385
23,155
25,007
26,293
19,728
21,030

65 6
67 8
67 5
70 1
71.8
62 1
64 3

66 5
69 9
69 0
77 0
73 0

380
340
394
395
421
430
448

106
107
157
159
143
107
120

Composites
32
28
30
21
36
24
10

0 27
0 27

71 0

FineCompact-FilledComposites
345
102
BIs-RI I
8.2
10 0
0 80
19,991
62 6
74 0
339
114
Bis-RI P
20,219
63 0
74 0
408
159
Clearfil Photo Posterior
7.5
10 0
0 53
25,343
70 5
71 0
350
ClearfilRay
80
10 0
1 18
27,384
73 1
69 0
408
174
Clearfil Ray Posterior
82
12 4
0 65
26,435
72 0
71 0
345
130
EstlluxHybndVS
88
12 4
0 90
22,594
66 7
68 4
345
133
Esttlux PosteriorCVS
96
12 4
1 48
24,508
69 4
68 4
332
128
Graft LC
67
81
1 26
21,719
65 4
299
100
Marathon
79
10 0
1 07
20,343
63 2
68 0
348
125
Occlusm*
86
12 4
0 99
23,774
68 4
69 0
277
111
Opalux
89
12 4
0 79
22,336
66 3
390
174
P-10 (PasteA-B)*
51-36
100-39
1 02
25,117
702
691
350
166
Photo ClearfilA
79
10 0
1 17
25,225
70 4
69 0
400
186
Ws~oMolarRadlopaque
75
10 0
1 08
26,754
72 4
68 4
MPS meanparttclesize(pm);Momodeoftheparttcleslzedrstribution(pm);Raintnnstcsurfaceroughness(pm);Y-Mod'Young'sModulusofelastlcity(MPa),Vol%
A
~norgan~cfiller volumepercentageas calculatedaccordingto Braem (1985), Vol%B' =norgan~cfiller volumepercentage as obtainedfrom the manufacturers,CS
compressivestrength (MPa),I-IV VickersHardness(kg/mm2),*Young's modulusdatataken from Braem(1985)

volumetric filler. Inorganic filler volume percentages were

derived from Eq. 1 for the experimentally obtained Young's
moduli. These theoretical values (Vol%A)are listed in Tables
3 to 8 next to the volumetric filler percentages (Vol%B) compiled from hterature and manufacturers' information.
With a computerized roughness tester (Form Talysurf 10,
Rank Taylor Hobson, Leicester, England, UK), the average
roughness (Ra) of composite surfaces was measured after a
toothbrush-dentifrice abrasion test. The brushing process was
performed with a modified Minimet machine (Buehler, Lake
Bluff, IL, USA) and was extensively described in an earlier
report (Willems et al., 199 la). Recently determined roughness
values were combined with the results of this previously
reported study.
A Vickers diamond pyramid indenter test was used for
determining the microhardness of composites. The procedure
covered the requirements of the Standard Test Method for
Microhardness of Materials (American Societyfor Testing and
Materials, 1984). Hardness measurements were made with
a Durimet microhardness tester (Leitz GmbH, Wetzlar,
Germany) with a load of 100 g. Ten indentations were produced for each sample. The average Vickers hardness is given
in Tables 3 to 8. Prior to measurement, the specimens, 5 mm
in diameter and 5 mm high, were embedded in epoxy resin
(Araldite DRL and Hardener HY956, Ciba Geigy, Dilbeek,
Belgium] and afterwards metallographically polished accordmg to a previously reported polishing procedure (Willems et
al., 1991a). In addition, Vickers hardness was determined for
human enamel and dentin (Table 9). For both tooth
substances, a total of 22 Vickers indentations were made
in samples of three human teeth, which were embedded in

the same epoxy resin and subjected to the same polishing

procedure.
The compressive strength values for all materials
were taken from the literature and from manufacturers'
information.
Additional SEM investigation was carried out to illustrate
filler morphology. Isolated filler particles were spread on
double-sided adhesive and electroconductlve tape (Leitendes
Klebeband A16, Balzers, Zaventem, Belgium) mounted on an
SEM stub. Loose powder particles were removed by air
pressure, and the sample was coated with a layer of pure gold
by vaporization in an argon gas atmosphere (SEM coating umt
E-5100, Polaron Equipment Limited, Watford, England,UK).
A selection of photomicrographs is given in Figs. 2-8.

RESULTS
The results of the different investigated properties are listed
m Tables 3 to 8. Since the amount of generated data was quite
extensive, the 89 composites are already divided into five
categories: Densified Composites, Microfine Composites, Miscellaneous Composites, Traditional Composites and FiberReinforced Composites. This ranking is based on transition
areas in criteria such as Young's Modulus, inorganic filler
volume percent, mean particle size, intrinsic surface roughness, surface hardness, and compressive strength. Additional
SEM investigations were performed to confirm filler morphology (Figs. 2-8).
This new classification is presented visually in Figs. 9 and
10 and will be further reviewed in the discussion section.
Table 9 lists the average Vickers hardness and standard
deviation of human enamel and dentin. These values can

Dental Materials~September 1992 313

TABLE 5: MICROFINECOMPOSITES
I PRODUCTS
MPS
PPF
HOMOGENEOUSMICROFINECOMPOSITES
HETEROGENEOUSMICROFINECOMPOSITES

Mo

Ra

Y-Mod

Vol%A

Vol%B

CS

HV

31 4
37 5
37 5
36 1
43.0
24 3
45 3
23 2
17 1

365
463
474
415
330
400
390
359
304

43
48
45

with splintered prepolymerized fillers

Certain*
Durafill*
Durafill VS
Estic Microfill*
Heho Progress
Hehosit*
Isomolar*
Isopast (Base-Cat)*
Microrest AP*
Multifill VS
Perfection
Pnsma-Microfine Compules
Prisma-Microfine
Silar Paste (A-B)*
Sllux*
S~luxPlus
Superlux Solar

0 04
0 04
0.04
0 04
0 04
0 04
0.04
0 04
0 04
0 04
0 04
0.04
0 04
0 04
0.04
0.04
0.04

14 2
17 0
15.5
11 7
17 9
13 6
16.5
20 8-12.8
17 0
16.6

15 3
18 9
25 9
15.3
18 9
15.3
25 9
39 5-15 3
32 0
39.5

0 08
0 11
0.16

8,770
6,085
6,154
6,473
9,098
6,401
9,619
5,436
8,679
7,833
5,620
6,612
5,700
9,075
9,372
9,466
7,905

34.9
22.6
23.0
24 7
36 1
24 3
38 0
18 8
34 5
31 1
20 0
25.4
20 4
36 0
37.1
37 5
31 4

25.5
29.8
20.8-21 3
20.0
22.0
16.0

48 8
54.2
18 9-48.8
39 5
39.5
31 9

0 22
0.19
0 13
0 10
0.13

0.04
0 04
0 04
0 04

13 0
13 3-20 7
12.4
13.8

18 9
12 4-32 0
18 9
13 9

0.21
0 16
0.09

9,692
9,932
10,612
10,147

38 3
39 1
41 3
39 8

0 04
0 04
0 04

12 4
52
8.0

32 0
53
59

0 22
0 25
0.33

13,372
11,918
9,384

49 0
45.2
37.2

0 12
0 07
0 13

50
36

55
25
42
39

35 4
36.3

262
283
344

41 0

324

39 7
49 1
40 5

498
303
325
455

55
63
61

304

47
70
55

46
59
55

with agglomerated prepolymerized fillers

Adaptic LCM
Answer (Uni-Cat)*
Heliomolar*
Nimettc bispers*

with sintered agglomerates

Amalux*
Amalux SmtergelNC
Slnterlux 2*

39 0
39.0

with spherical prepolymerized fillers

MPS meanparticlesize(~tm),PPF' meanparticlesizeof prepolymenzedfillers and sinteredagglomerates,Mo modeof the particlestzedlstnbut=on(~m),Ra intnns=c
surface roughness(~m); Y-Mod: Young's Modulusof elasticity (MPa); Vol%A inorganicfiller volume percentageas calculatedaccordingto Braem (1985), Vol%B:
inorganic filler volume percentageas obtainedfrom the manufacturers,CS compressivestrength (MPa), HV Vlckers Hardness(kg/mm2),*Young's modulus data
taken from Braem (1985)

serve as a basis for comparison for the investigated dental

materials. Vickers hardness values of the Microfine, MidwayFilled and Compact-Filled composites broadly range from 25
to 63, from 65 to 97 and from 100 to 186, respectively.
DISCUSSION
Composites have been available to the dental profession for
many years. The mass of data generated about the various
competing products is very confusing, and ranking the different materials according to their laboratory results does not
necessarily reflect their clinical performance (Lambrechts et
al., 1987).
The criteria used in this study to describe the commercially
available composites were carefully selected. First of all, the
inorganic filler fraction in volume percent and the mean
particle size are criteria on which most classifications are
based (Lutz and Phillips, 1983; Albers, 1985; Leinfelder,
1985). One advantage of the present study is that the mathematical calculation used to determine the particle size distribution was done using the same algorithm inherent to the
particle sizing apparatus, so the acquired individual data can
accurately be compared with one another.
However, an elaborate categorization should be based on
additional criteria in order to obtain a more accurate descrip-

314 W~llems et al /Classlhcatlon of dental composites

tion of the material. The Young's modulus is a very sensitive

parameter for evaluating and ranking particle reinforced
composites (Braem, 1985; Braem et al., 1986). Indeed, a
material with a low modulus will deform more under masticatory stresses, particularly in posterior regions, resulting in
catastrophic failures (Albers, 1985; Lambrechts et al., 1987).
The most appropriate modulus of elasticity for a composite
would be one comparable to that of dentin and amalgam
(Nakayama et al., 1974). Additionally, the exponential dependence of the Young~sModulus on the volumetric filler fraction
offers an opportunity to check the volumetric filler percentages obtained from manufacturers. For several products,
there are obvious differences between these values. Since the
phenomenological model has proven its validity (Braem et al.,
1987), one may well question the information some manufacturers release regarding this property.
Another criterion to consider is the intrinsic surface roughness of a material. This surface condition is achieved after
extensive toothbrush-dentifrice abrasion ofthe composite and
is an inherent characteristic of the material tested that
determines its clinical behavior, like surface gloss, staining
and friction. An enamel surface roughness value at enamel-toenamel occlusal contact areas of 0.64 _+0.25 ~m is considered
to be the standard with which to compare the roughness

TABLE 6: MISCELLANEOUSCOMPOSITES
PRODUCTS

MPS

Mo

Ra

0.8-100
12 3
12 4
15 3
15 3

0 96
0 58
0.74

15 0
13 1

15 3
15 3

64

47

16 1

15 3

Adapt~c(80's)*
15 4
Adaptic Radiopaque(UnJ-Cat)* 13 5-8 1
Aurafill*
86
Clearhll*
97
Concise*
Epolite 100'
10 1
EstlluxPostenor*
95
Estilux PostenorXRI*
51
Est~luxPostenorXR2
88
Mlradapt*
78
Nlmetic(Unl-Cat)*
14 4-12 4
Vlslo FII*
75

18 8
18 8-12 4
12 4
12 4

with splintered prepolymerized fillers

Bell Firm(Uni-Cat)
2 0-7 4
Bis-RI M
ClearfilLustre
Palflque Estehte
Palflque Lite

10 4
12.9
13 4
15 1

Y-Mod

Vol%A

Vol%B

CS

HV

12,882
11,511
12,132
12,118

47 8
44 0
45 8
45 8

59.0
56 0
56 0

324
301
387
373
373

63
100
63
70

0 26
0 13

10,786
9,755

41 8
38 5

47 6
48 0

455
340

63
56

0 44

14,166

51 0

343

89
27

with agglomerated prepolymerized fillers

Vis~oDispers*
HehomolarRadiopaque

with sintered agglomerates

Amalux2

with spherical prepolymerized fillers

Pekalux

RestoluxSP-4

MPS

11 2

0 18
5,973
TABLE 7: TRADITIONALCOMPOSITES
1 26
21,412
1 08
19,616
0 85
17,935
0 83
20,373
1 44
22,531
1 46
18,206
0 88
17,408
21,805

22 0

54 7

275

64 9
61 9
58 9
63 2
66 6
59 4
57 9
65 5

56 3
55 0
62 0
58 1
56 8
53 0
58 1
66 2

234
240
345
252
241
253
294

12 4
12.4
11 1
12 4
10 0
1 01
20,320
63 1
32 0-25.9
0 91
20,908
64 1
81
1 23
21,723
65 4
TABLE 8: FIBER-REINFORCEDCOMPOSITES
15 3

1 19

23,839

60 1
58 9
64 4

346
310
330
350

68 5

121
105
93
107
96

112
149
160
125

meanpartlclesize(pm),Mo.modeofthepartlclesJzedrstnbut~on(pm),Ra
intransicsurfaceroughness(pm),Y-ModYoung'sModulusofelastlcity(MPa),Vol%A

inorganic filler volumepercentageas calculatedaccording to Braem(1985), Vol%B inorganicfiller volumepercentageas obtainedfrom the manufacturers,CS

compressive strength (MPa),HV VickersHardness(kg/mm2),* Young's modulusdatataken from Braem(1985)

values of composites (Willems et al., 1991a).

The surface hardness of the dental restorative materials
was measured. The relative importance of a Vickers hardness
test lies in the fact that it throws light on the mechanical
properties of the materials investigated. This is true because
of the relation whmh exists between hardness and other
physical properties (O'Neill, 1967). The Vickers hardness
values presented in this study were obtained after complete
post-polymerization of the samples, which produced somewhat higher hardness values (Atmadja and Bryant, 1990).
Finally, compressive strength values obtained from the
literature are given. The compressive strength, in particular,
indicates the ability ofa material to withstand vertical stresses,
which is vital in high stress areas.
All composites were ranked in a classification containing
five categories: Densified Composites, Microfine Composites,
Miscellaneous Composites, Traditional Composites, and Fiber-Reinforced Composites. A general overview is given in
Figs. 9 and 10. Composites intended for posterior use should
have a Young's modulus at least equal to that of dentin
(Nakayama et al., 1974) and preferably higher. Dentin has a
Young's modulus of 18,500 MPa (Craig, 1989). This corresponds to an imaginary volume percentage of 60% according
to Eq. 1 (Braem, 1985). Therefore, the group of Densified
Composites was subdivided into two classes, Midway-Filled
(Table 3) and Compact-Filled (Table 4), according to the

TABLE 9: AVERAGEVlCKERSHARDNESSVALUES (AV) AND

STANDARD DEVIATIONS(SD)OF HUMANENAMELAND
DENTIN(N = NUMBEROF INDENTATIONS)
enamel
dentin

AV
408
60

SD
33
4

n
22
22

amount of inorganic filler content, <60 vo]% and >60 vol%

respectively. Each class was further divided into two subclasses, Ultrafine (MPS <3 pro) and Fine (MPS >3 pm), as a
function of the mean particle size of the composites (Inokoshi
et al., In press). Indeed, according to Lemfelder (1985), the
wear rate of composites can be substantmlly reduced by
decreasing the filler particle s~ze and by increasing the inorganic filler fraction. Higher filler levels result in increased
stiffness, hardness, and compressive strength (L1 et al., 1985;
Braem et al., 1989). The Heterogeneous Microfine Composites
(Table 5) as well as the Miscellaneous Composites (Table 61
were subdivided according to the type of prepolymerized
or agglomerated fillers used. Tables 7 and 8 give the result for
the Traditional Composites and the Fiber-Reinforced Composites, respectively. In addition, the intrinsic surface roughness of composites should be less than or equal to that of
enamel-to-enamelocclusal contact areas (Willemsetal., 1991a).
Table 9 also gives the obtained average Vickers hardness of
Dental Matenals/September 1992 315

Fig. 2. Both UItraflne Compact-Filled Composites Adaptic II (A) and P-50 APC (B) are heavily filled with rather small
inorganic particles. At present, they are the materials of choice for restoring posterior cavities (bar = 10 ~m).

Fig. 3. Command Ultrafine, an Ultrafine MidwayFilled Composite, is composed of very fine bariumglass particles with an average particle size of
1,1 p.m.This type of compos,te yields good esthetics
and is strong enough to withstand mastlcatory
stresses in anterior restorations (bar = 10 ~m).

that they are able to support occlusal

stresses. Furthermore, their surface
roughness ranges from 0.48 ~tm to
0.71 pm, which is very similar to that of
enamel (Willems et al., 1991a). The
Ultrafine Compact-Filled Composites
are thus the materials of choice for
restoring posterior cavities.
The Ultrafine Midway-Filled
Composites could be very satisfactory
materials for the restoration of
anterior teeth (Table 3 and Fig. 3).
They have a Young's modulus that is
high enough to resist the functional
stresses which are less important in
anterior restorations when normal
occlusion is considered (Howell and
Brudevold, 1950; De Boever et al., 1978;
Craig, 1989). Their relatively low intrinsic roughness is due to their very
small particle size (MPS <3 ~m) and
makes them very suitable for anterior
use. They should be used in large Class
Fig, 5. FuI-Fd Compules (A) is a Fine Midway-Filled
Fig. 4. Sdux Plus (A) is a light cured Heterogeneous
Composite. Due to its fairly large particles, it is less
Microfine Composite with splintered prepolymerized
III and V restorations and in Class IV
esthetcally pleasing than the Ultrafme Midway-Filled
fillers. Answer (B)is a chemically cured Heterogeneous
cavities.
Composites. Graft LC (B) is a Fine Compact-Filled
MIcrofine Composite with agglomerated
The highly polishable Microfine
Composite. Its big filler particles are expected to
prepolymerized fillers. Both materials have
Composites (Table 5) are frequently
increase the occlusal wear rate of the material,
approximately the same properties. They differ mainly
These resin composites are therefore less suitable
used in small Class III and V restorain the manufacturing process of their prepolymenzed
for posterior use (bar = 20 lira).
filler particles. Silux Plus contains fillers of a more
tions because of their glossy appearangular shape whereas the filler particles of Answer
ance (Ameye et al., 1981) (Fig. 4). Howare more round (bar = 20 ~m).
ever, they are not indicated for larger
cavities because of their low Young~s
human enamel and dentin which correlates with literature modulus and high chipping sensitivity (Lambrechts et al.,
data (Caldwell et al., 1957; Ryge et al., 1961; O'Brien and Ryge, 1982). No matter what type of pre-polymerate is used
1978; Craig, 1989). Restorative materials can be compared (Table 5), they all have a very low inorganic filler content,
which makes them more susceptible to occlusal deformation,
with these standards.
The Ultrafine Compact-Filled Composites (Table 4 and thus yielding high failure rates in occlusal cavities and large
Fig. 2) are very promising materials for posterior use when all Class III, IV, and V restorations (Albers, 1985; Van Meerbeek
of the above is taken into account. They have a Young's et al., In press). Microfine Composites with spherical
modulus that is higher than that of dentin (Craig, 1979), and prepolymerized fillers (Fig. 9) were found only in some experithey have a high amount of inorganic particles. They also mental products (Roulet, 1987). Homogeneous Microfine
display goodVickers hardness values compared to dentin and Composites are not commercially available because of
relatively high compressive strength values, which suggests manufacturing difficulties. Indeed, inserting a high amount of

316 W#lems et al /Classlhcatlon of dental composites

F~g. 6. The spherical prepolymer,zed filler particles of

Pekalux, a Miscellaneous Composite, are clearly
apparent (bar = 20 pm).

Fig. 7. Adaptlc ~s a Traditional Composite. These

composites are older materials and are now rarely
used (bar = 20 pro)

DENSIFIEDCOMPOSITES

MICROFINECOMPOSITES
TRADITIONALCOMPOSITES

FIBER-REINFORCED
COMPOSITES

Fig. 9. Categorization of composttes

finely divided colloidal silica of 40 nm average particle size

(Aerosil, Degussa AG, Hanau-Wolfgang, Germany) considerably increases the material's viscosity and jeopardizes its
handling characteristics (Lambrechts and Vanherle, 1983). It
should be noted that the MPS-value of 0.04 pm listed in Table
5 for the Microfine Composites represents a commonly accepted mean particle size of the finely divided colloidal silica.
Slight variations in the size of these silica particles do exist,
ranging from 0.007 to 0.115 pm (Albers, 1985). However, the
particle-size analyzer only measured the mean particle size of
prepolymerized resin fillers and sintered agglomerates which
is represented by the PPF-value in Table 5.
Both Fine Midway- and Fine Compact-Filled subdivisions
(Tables 3 and 4, and Fig. 5) contain composites with an
appreciably higher particle size (6-10 pin), resulting in a
decreased polishability. As stated above, bigger particles also

Fig. 8. The Ftber-Remforced Composite, RestoluxSP4 contains glass ceramtc fibers with a maxtmum
length of 300 pro, which are embedded in resin matrix
(bar = 20 #m).

tend to increase the wear rate of the materials. These composites are, therefore, less suitable for anterior or posterior use,
respectively.
Miscellaneous Composites (Table 6) are materials that
contain a blend of prepolymerized and inorganic fillers. The
latter are sometimes intentionally added to increase the
radiopacity of these composites. Trying to rank these materials is very difficult because of their heterogeneous composition. Fig. 6 shows Pekalux, a Miscellaneous Composite with
spherical prepolymerized fillers.
The Traditional Composites (Table 7 and Fig. 7) are older
materials and are no longer promoted. Traditional Composites very often contain large quartz particles that are very
hard. Exposure ofthese filler particles because of resin matrix
wear results in a higher surface roughness and clinically a dull
appearance. In addition, quartz lacks the radiopacity required
for posterior restorations (Willems et al., 199 lb). Most of these
composites have therefore been replaced by products with an
improved filler concept.
Finally, the last subdivision contains the Fiber-Reinforced
Composites (Table 8 and Fig. 8). Restolux SP-4 was the only
investigated product in this group. This composite is composed of glass-ceramic fibers of a maximum length ofapprox]mately 300 pro. Restolux SP-4 has a very satisfactory Young's
modulus and could perform well in posterior cavities. However, its rather high intrinsic roughness and relatively hard
glass ceramic fillers (Willems et al., In press) probably would
generate significantly higher wear values compared with the
enamel standard (Lambrechts et al.. 1987; 1989). This makes
the material less suitable as an amalgam substitute.
Data on Young's modulus, Vlckers hardness and surface
roughness were assembled in Fig. 10 for 62 composites. These
62 materials, of which data for all three properties was
available, represent all subdivisions of the classification introduced in this article. Three main groups can clearly be
differentiated. These are the Microfine Composites, the
Midway-Filled Composites and the Compact-Filled Composites. There is also a trend for a further subd]vimon (Ultrafine
versus Fine) of the last two groups mentioned, based on their
surface roughness which reflects their mean particle size. The
Traditional Composites are situated next to the CompactFilled Composites. They exhibit a rather high surface roughness. These materials are now abandonned and replaced by
technologically improved products. Chemical-cured composites such as the Traditional Composite Epolite 100 (circle

Dental Matenals/September 1992 317

The comparison of properties

such as intrinsic surface roughness, Young's modulus, which
reflects their filler content, compressive strength, and surface
hardness between composites and
human enamel and dentin showed
that the Ultra fine Compact-Filled
Composites are the materials
of choice for restoring posterior
cavities. The Ultrafine MidwayFilled Composites seem to be very
satisfactory materials for anterior

Classification of Resin Composites

1.50

: MIC
: UMF
FMF
UCF

12o

<> : FCF
,~' MIS
o : TRA
: FRC

"/r

0.90

use.
Received February 25, 1992/
Accepted July 31, 1992

,,.,,.
r,,,"

0.301

0.00
2675o

Ill[

,-19733

107
12717

186

5700

Young'sModulus(MPa)
Fig. 10. Three-dimensional graph representing the obtained data on Young's modulus, surface roughness and Vckers
hardness. Complete data sets were available for 61 composites. (MIC: Microfine Composites; UMF: Ultrafine (Free)
Midway-Filled Composites; FMF: Fine Midway-Fdled Composites; UCF: Ultrafine (Fine) Compact-Filled Composites;
FCF: Fine Compact-Filled Composites; MIS: Miscellaneous Composites; TRA: Traditional Composites; FRC: FiberReinforced Composite).

marked with an asterisk) and the Midway-Filled Composite

Gem-CCI (cross marked with an asterisk) clearly display
higher surface roughness due to the incorporation of air
bubbles and voids during the required mixing process. The
diamond marked with an asterisk represents the CompactFilled Composite Valux. Its surface roughness, however,
slightly approximates the Midway-Filled Composite range,
but its Young's modulus and Vickers hardness clearly belong
to the range of the Compact-Filled Composites. Ideally, high
Youn~s modulus and Vickers hardness values combinedwith
a relatively low surface roughness value would be the
charateristic properties of the posterior composite of choice.
Only three composites approximate this concept, namely
Adaptic II, P-50 APC, and Z-100 (indicated by small filled
diamonds). All three composites are Ultafine Compact-Filled
Composites.
The parameters displayed in Fig. 10 may be of help in
categorizing newly developed materials. Checking the intrinsic surface roughness and Young's modulus of these new
composites will considerably help to rank these materials
among competing products. The Vickers hardness additionally gives an idea about the mechanical properties of the
material investigated. However, clinical studies on composites will have to confirm their in vitro performance.
The goal in restorative dentistry should be to make highly
wear-resistant occluding surfaces that do not wear opposing
structures.
318 Willems et al /Classlflcatlon of dental composites

Addresscorrespondenceandrepnntrequests
to
G Wfllems
Department of Operatwe Dentistry and
Dental Materials
Kathoheke Umversltelt te Leuven
U Z St Raphael
Kapucljnenvoer7
3000 Leuven,Belgmm

REFERENCES

Albers HF (1985). Resin systems.

In: Tooth colored restoratives.
Seventh edition. Cotati: Alto
Books, 21-62.
American Society for Testing and Materials (1984). Designation E 384-84: Standard test method for microhardness of
materials. In: Priemon RA, editor. Annual book of ASTM
Standards. Section 03.03. Easton: American Society for
Testing and Materials, 356-377.
Ameye C, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G (1981). Conventional
and microfilled composite resins. I. Color stability and
marginal adaptation. J Prosthet Dent 46:623-630.
Atmadja G and Bryant RW (1990). Some factors influencing
the depth ofcure ofvisible light-activated compositeresins.
Aust Dent J 35:213-218.
Braem M (1985). Young's modulus determination. In: An invitro investigation into the physical durability of dental
composites. Thesis. Leuven: Acco, 85-116.
Braem M, Lambrechts P, Van Doren VE, Vanherle G (1986).
The impact of composite structure on its elastic response.
J Dent Res 65:648-653.
Braem M, Van Doren VE, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G (1987).
Determination ofYoung's modulus of dental composites: a
phenomenological model. J Mater Sci 22:2037-2042.
Braem M, Finger W, Van Doren VE, Lambrechts P, Vanherle
G (1989). Mechanical properties and filler fraction ofdental
composites. Dent Mater 5:346-349.
Caldwell RC, Muntz ML, Gilmore RW, Pigman W (1957).
Microhardness studies ofintact surface enamel. JDent Res
36:732-738.

Chung KH (1990). The relationship between composition and

properties of posterior resin composites. JDentRes 69:852856.
Chung KH, Greener EH (1990). Correlation between degree of
conversion, filler concentration and mechanical properties
of posterior composite resins. J Oral Rehabil 17:487-494.
Council on Dental Materials, American Dental Association
(1977). Specification # 27 for d~rect filling materials. J A m
Dent Assoc 94:1191.
Craig RG (1979). Selected properties of dental composites. J
Dent Res 58:1544-1550.
Craig RG (1989). Mechanical properties. In: Restorative Dental Materials. Eighth edition. St Louis: C.V. Mosby Company, 65-112.
De Boever JA, McGall WD, Holden S, Ash MM (1978). Functional occlusal forces: an investigation by telemetry. J
Prosthet Dent 40:326-333.
Hosoda H, Yamada T, Inokoshl S (1990). SEM and elemental
analysis of composite resins. J Prosthet Dent 64:669-676.
Howell AH, Brudevold F (1950). Vertical forces used during
chewing of food. J Dent Res 29:133-136.
Inokoshi S, Wlllems G, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P,
Braem M, Vanherle G (In press). Dual-cure luting composites - Part I: Filler particle distribution J Oral Rehabil:
Accepted, 1991.
Lambrechts P, Vanherle G (1983). Structural evidences of the
microfilled composites J Bwmed Mater Res 17:249-260.
Lambrechts P, Ameye C, Vanherle G/1982). Conventional
and microfilled composite resins. Part II: Chip fractures. J
Prosthet Dent 48:527-538.
Lambrechts P, Braem M, Vanherle G (1987). Evaluation of
climcal performance for posterior composite resins and
dentin adhesives. Oper Dent 12:53-78.
Lambrechts P, Braem M, Vuylsteke-Wauters M, Vanherle G
(1989). Quantitative in vivo wear of human enamel. JDent
Res 68:1752-1754.
Lemfelder KF (1985). Composite resins. Dent Chn North Am

29:359-371.
Li Y, Swartz ML, Phillips RW, Moore BK, Roberts TA (1985).
Effect of filler content and size on properties of composites.
J Dent Res 64:1396-1401.
Lutz F, Phillips RW (1983). A classification and evaluation of
composite resin systems. J Prosthet Dent 50:480-488.
Nakayama WT, Hall DR, Grenoble DE, Katz, JL (1974).
Elastic properties of dental resin restorative materials. J
Dent Res 53:1121-1126.
O'Brien WJ, Ryge GR (1978). Tabulated values ofphysical and
mechanical properties. In: An Outline of Dental Materials
and their Selection. 1st edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders
Company, 385-408.
O'Neill H (1967). Hardness relations with other physical
properties. In: Hardness measurement of metals and alloys. 2nd edition. London: Chapman and Hall Ltd, 191-207.
Roulet JF (1987). Polymer constructions used in restorative
dentistry. In: Degradation of Dental Polymers. Basel:
Karger, 3-59.
Ryge G, Foley DE, Fairhurst CW (1961). Micro-indentation
hardness. J Dent Res 40:1116-1126.
Van Meerbeek B, Braem M, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G (In
press). Evaluation of two dentin adhesives in cervical
lesions. J Prosthet Dent: Accepted, 1990.
Wfllems G, Cells JP. Lambrechts P, Braem M, Vanherle G (In
press). Hardness and Young's modulus determined by
nano-indentation technique of filler particles of dental
restorative materials compared with human enamel. J
Biomed Mater Res : Accepted, 1992.
Wfllems G, Lambrechts P, Braem M, Vuylsteke-Wauters M,
Vanherle G (1991a). The surface roughness of enamel-toenamel contact areas compared with the intrinsic roughness of dental resin composites. J Dent Res 70:1299-1305.
Willems G, Noack MJ, Inokoshi S, Lambrechts P. Van Meerbeek
B, Braem M, Roulet JF, Vanherle G (1991b). Radiopacity
of composites compared with human enamel and dentine.
J Dent 19:362-365

Dental Matenals/September 1992 319