Physico-mechanical characterization and fracture reliability of dental resin composites for enamel restoration

  • Carianne Mendes de Almeida
  • Evandro Piva
  • Camila Gonçalves Duarte
  • Henrique Timm Vieira
  • Cristina Pereira Isolan
  • Lisia Lorea Valente
  • Eliseu Aldrighi MünchowEmail author
Technical Paper


This study evaluated the physico-mechanical behavior and the fracture reliability of different dental resin composites indicated for the restoration of the highly mineralized enamel. The following resin composites were tested: Concept Advanced (Vigodent), Fill Magic (Vigodent), Llis (FGM), and Natural Look (DFL); Filtek Z250 (3M ESPE) was used as a universal control. All composites were fully characterized with the following tests: degree of conversion (DC), flexural strength (σ), flexural modulus (E), water sorption (WS) and solubility (SL), hardness (KMN). Scanning electron microscopy was used for morphological evaluation, whereas the topographical evaluation was carried out by profilometry (Ra) and atomic force microscopy. The color stability of the resin composites was also assessed using a digital spectrophotometer and the CIEL*a*b* system. Data were analyzed with ANOVA as well as the Weibull analysis (α = 5%). DC was similar among all composites (51.0–62.3%, p = 0.104). Llis and the control showed overall greater mechanical performance and hardness than the others. Llis and Natural Look presented lower WS and SL than the others. The control acquired smoother surface than the enamel composites. Concept Advanced and Natural Look demonstrated the greatest and lowest reliability of the study, respectively, whereas Llis showed the greatest characteristic strength (p < 0.05). Llis showed the greatest color stability of the study after 28 days of water storage (p < 0.05). In conclusion, our findings confirmed the performance of four different resin composites indicated to restore dental enamel, showing that two of them (Llis and Natural Look) can be sufficiently strong for the restoration of stress-receiving areas, such as the posterior dentition. Most of the enamel composites were as reliable as the universal control resin composite.


FTIR Scanning electron microscopy Flexural strength Water sorption and solubility Hardness Weibull analysis 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Borgia E, Baron R, Borgia JL (2019) Quality and survival of direct light-activated composite resin restorations in posterior teeth: a 5- to 20-year retrospective longitudinal study. J Prosthodont 28:e195–e203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vural UK, Kiremitci A, Gokalp S (2019) Clinical performance and epidemiologic aspects of fractured anterior teeth restored with a composite resin: a two-year clinical study. J Prosthodont 28:e204–e209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Salerno M, Diaspro A (2015) Dentistry on the bridge to nanoscience and nanotechnology. Front Mater 2:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ferracane JL (2011) Resin composite—state of the art. Dent Mater 27:29–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ferracane JL, Pfeifer CS, Hilton TJ (2014) Microstructural features of current resin composite materials. Curr Oral Health Rep 1:205–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tanthanuch S, Kukiattrakoon B, Peerasukprasert T (2016) The effect of red and white wine on color changes of nanofilled and nanohybrid resin composites. Restor Dent Endod 41:130–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Villarroel M, Fahl N, De Sousa AM, De Oliveira OB Jr (2011) Direct esthetic restorations based on translucency and opacity of composite resins. J Esthet Restor Dent 23:73–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Habib E, Wang R, Wang Y, Zhu M, Zhu XX (2016) Inorganic fillers for dental resin composites: present and future. ACS Biomater Sci Eng 2:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hassan AM, Nabih SM, Mossa HM, Baroudi K (2015) The effect of three polishing systems on surface roughness of flowable, microhybrid, and packable resin composites. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 5:242–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Koottathape N, Takahashi H, Iwasaki N, Kanehira M, Finger WJ (2014) Quantitative wear and wear damage analysis of composite resins in vitro. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 29:508–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Munchow EA, Zanchi CH, Ogliari FA, Silva MG, de Oliveira IR, Piva E (2014) Replacing HEMA with alternative dimethacrylates in dental adhesive systems: evaluation of polymerization kinetics and physicochemical properties. J Adhes Dent 16:221–228Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Valente LL, Peralta SL, Ogliari FA, Cavalcante LM, Moraes RR (2013) Comparative evaluation of dental resin composites based on micron- and submicron-sized monomodal glass filler particles. Dent Mater 29:1182–1187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Quinn JB, Quinn GD (2010) A practical and systematic review of Weibull statistics for reporting strengths of dental materials. Dent Mater 26:135–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Beun S, Glorieux T, Devaux J, Vreven J, Leloup G (2007) Characterization of nanofilled compared to universal and microfilled composites. Dent Mater 23:51–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fugolin AP, Correr-Sobrinho L, Correr AB, Sinhoreti MA, Guiraldo RD, Consani S (2016) Influence of irradiance on Knoop hardness, degree of conversion, and polymerization shrinkage of nanofilled and microhybrid composite resins. Gen Dent 64:26–31Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gajewski VE, Pfeifer CS, Froes-Salgado NR, Boaro LC, Braga RR (2012) Monomers used in resin composites: degree of conversion, mechanical properties and water sorption/solubility. Braz Dent J 23:508–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dadrasi A, Fooladpankeh S, Alavi Gharahbagh A (2019) Interactions between HA/GO/epoxy resin nanocomposites: optimization, modeling and mechanical performance using central composite design and genetic algorithm. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 41:63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Barszczewska-Rybarek IM (2009) Structure-property relationships in dimethacrylate networks based on Bis-GMA, UDMA and TEGDMA. Dent Mater 25:1082–1089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Xavier AM, Sunny SM, Rai K, Hegde AM (2016) Repeated exposure of acidic beverages on esthetic restorative materials: an in vitro surface microhardness study. J Clin Exp Dent 8:e312–e317Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    ISO 4049 (2009) Dentistry—polymer-based filling, restorative and luting materialsGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bicalho AA, Tantbirojn D, Versluis A, Soares CJ (2014) Effect of occlusal loading and mechanical properties of resin composite on stress generated in posterior restorations. Am J Dent 27:129–133Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ferracane JL (2006) Hygroscopic and hydrolytic effects in dental polymer networks. Dent Mater 22:211–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Venz S, Dickens B (1991) NIR-spectroscopic investigation of water sorption characteristics of dental resins and composites. J Biomed Mater Res 25:1231–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Liu X, Wang Z, Zhao C, Bu W, Zhang Y, Na H (2018) Synthesis, characterization and evaluation of a fluorinated resin monomer with low water sorption. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 77:446–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sideridou I, Tserki V, Papanastasiou G (2002) Effect of chemical structure on degree of conversion in light-cured dimethacrylate-based dental resins. Biomaterials 23:1819–1829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kramer N, Garcia-Godoy F, Reinelt C, Feilzer AJ, Frankenberger R (2011) Nanohybrid vs. fine hybrid composite in extended Class II cavities after six years. Dent Mater 27:455–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Antunes PV, Ramalho AL (2018) Influence of abrasive solutions on direct restorative composites wear. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 40:20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Faria AC, Benassi UM, Rodrigues RC, Ribeiro RF, Mattos Mda G (2007) Analysis of the relationship between the surface hardness and wear resistance of indirect composites used as veneer materials. Braz Dent J 18:60–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ramalho A, Antunes PV (2005) Reciprocating wear test of dental composites: effect on the antagonist. Wear 259:1005–1011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wang T, Tsoi JK, Matinlinna JP (2016) A novel zirconia fibre-reinforced resin composite for dental use. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 53:151–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Munchow EA, Correa MB, Ogliari FA, Piva E, Zanchi CH (2012) Correlation between surface roughness and microhardness of experimental composites with varying filler concentration. J Contemp Dent Pract 13:299–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Salerno M, Patra N, Thorat S, Derchi G, Diaspro A (2012) Combined effect of polishing on surface morphology and elastic properties of a commercial dental restorative resin composite. Sci Adv Mater 4:126–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Prado RD, Pereira GKR, Bottino MA, Melo RM, Valandro LF (2017) Effect of ceramic thickness, grinding, and aging on the mechanical behavior of a polycrystalline zirconia. Braz Oral Res 31:e82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Warangkulkasemkit S, Pumpaluk P (2019) Comparison of physical properties of three commercial composite core build-up materials. Dent Mater J 38:177–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    DA Silva MA, Vitti RP, Sinhoreti MA, Consani RL, Silva-Júnior JG, Tonholo J (2016) Effect of alcoholic beverages on surface roughness and microhardness of dental composites. Dent Mater J 35:621–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Munchow EA, Ferreira AC, Machado RM, Ramos TS, Rodrigues-Junior SA, Zanchi CH (2014) Effect of acidic solutions on the surface degradation of a micro-hybrid composite resin. Braz Dent J 25:321–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carianne Mendes de Almeida
    • 1
  • Evandro Piva
    • 1
  • Camila Gonçalves Duarte
    • 2
  • Henrique Timm Vieira
    • 2
  • Cristina Pereira Isolan
    • 1
  • Lisia Lorea Valente
    • 1
  • Eliseu Aldrighi Münchow
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Graduate Program in Dentistry, School of DentistryFederal University of PelotasPelotasBrazil
  2. 2.Center of Development and Control of Biomaterials (CDC-Bio), Federal University of PelotasPelotasBrazil
  3. 3.Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of DentistryFederal University of Rio Grande do SulPorto AlegreBrazil

Personalised recommendations