E17. Compare the physical and mechanical properties of unfilled resins traditional composites, and microfilled composites. The properties compared should include surface finish, thermal behavior, compressive strength, tensile strength, modulus of elasticity, hardness, water absorption, color stability, and resistance to toothbrush abrasion.

 

Notice the difference between weight % and volume %. Weight % depends on density and may not reflect how much filler there is in a composite (e.g., use uranium, and the weight fraction can be very high despite a low volume fraction). Manufacturers often market products based on weight % filler rather than volume %. Remember, though, that it is the volume fraction filler that was used to predict properties such as Young's modulus and tensile strength.  

Property Small Particle Filled Hybrid Heterogenous Microfilled
Weight % filler 80-85 75-80 35-55
Volume % filler 55-65 50-60 25-35
Linear shrinkage (%) 1-2 1-2 2-3
Thermal expansion (ppm/ºC) 19-26 30-40 50-60
Water sorption (weight-%) 0.5-0.6 0.5-0.7 1.4-1.7
Modulus of Elasticity (GPa) 15-20 7-12 3-6
Tensile Strength (MPa) 75-90 70-90 30-50
Compressive Strength (MPa) 350-400 300-350 250-350

As seen from the table, the volume fraction rarely exceeds 65 vol.%, simply because of the fact that random filler packing is used, not the maximal (74%) close packing.

Because of the substantially larger filler surface area of a microfilled composite, more resin is needed to wet the filler surfaces with resin and give the composite an acceptable viscosity.

As seen from this table, the volume fraction filler of the microfilled composite is only about half the volume fraction filler as it was in the small particle filled resin. That difference in volume fraction filler explains why the microfilled composite has inferior properties. However, remember that most microfilled composites belong to the heterogeneous microfilled composites (prepolymerized composite chips mixed with a curable matrix). That explains the lower tensile strength of the microfilled composites (poor filler surface bonding), but also a lower than expected setting contraction (large portion of the resin is prepolymerized. This table also shows that the filler fraction is slightly higher in small particle filled composites than it is in hybrid composites. The reason is simply that the small particle filled composites use broader filler particle size distribution.

 


prev.gif (232 bytes)home.gif (253 bytes)next.gif (232 bytes)

E-mail: ksoderholm@dental.ufl.edu

© 1999, Karl-Johan M. Söderholm