At Signature Dental, you
can rest assured that we only use
the best materials available.
Thorough research and long term
studies are critical factors that
must satisfy our criteria. There are
many many great companies that make
excellent ADA approved
bio-materials.
When it comes to
COMPOSITES, here's an example, 3M
ESPE:
To understand WHY our
nanotechnology is better, you have
to first understand how it is
different.
3M ESPE builds its
nanocomposite using a patented
process that creates unique groups,
or clusters, of nanometer-sized
particles. With Filtek™ Supreme Plus
Universal Restorative, the
nanoclusters shear at a rate similar
to the wear of the surrounding
matrix during abrasion. This allows
the restoration to maintain a
smoother surface for long-term
polish retention.
This same nanotechnology
delivers high filler loading,
resulting in the high strength
commonly found in hybrids and
microhybrids. That means it can be
used effectively in all areas of the
mouth.
In contrast, hybrids and
microhybrids lose larger particles
to abrasive forces over time. The
average particle size of fillers is
typically between 0.4 and 0.6
microns. And as these materials are
abraded, the loss of filler
particles results in the formation
of pits or voids, leaving a
roughened, less-polished surface."
And the research.......
[1] European Commission DG
Enterprise Directorate G.
Medical Devices: Guidance
document
MEDDEV 2.12-2. May 2004.
[2] Mannocci F, Qualtrough AJ,
Worthington HV, Watson TF, Pitt
Ford TR. Randomized clinical
comparison of endodontically
treated teeth restored with
amalgam or with fiber posts and
resin composite: five-year
results. Oper Dent. 2005
Jan-Feb;30(1):9-15.
[3] Hörsted-Bindslev P, Heyde-Petersen
B, Simonsen P, Baelum V. Tunnel
or saucer-shaped
restorations: a survival
analysis. Clin Oral Investig.
2005; 9: 233-8. Epub 2005 Aug
23.
[4] Puppin-Rontani RM, de Góes
MF, Voelske CE, García-Godoy F.
Clinical performance and
SEM evaluation of direct
composite restorations in
primary molars. Am J Dent. 2006
Oct;19(5):255-61.
[5] Kleverlaan CJ, Feilzer AJ.
Polymerization shrinkage and
contraction stress of dental
resin
composites. Dent Mater. 2005
Dec;21(12):1150-7. Epub 2005 Jul
22.
[6] Sharp LJ, Sy A, Rui Y, Suh
BI. Cure kinetics of composites
using video imaging.
Am J Dent. 2005 Apr;18(2):141-4.
[7] Tiba A, Charlton DG,
Vanderwalle KS, Cohen ME.
Volumetric polymerization
shrinkage of
resin composites under simulated
intraoral temperature and
humidity conditions.
Oper Dent. 2005
Nov-Dec;30(6):696-701.
[8] Lee IB, Cho BH, Son HH, Um
CM, Lim BS. The effect of
consistency, specimen geometry
and adhesion on the axial
polymerization shrinkage
measurement of light cured
composites.
Dent Mater. 2006
Nov;22(11):1071-9. Epub 2005 Dec
20.
[9] Lee IB, Cho BH, Son HH, Um
CM. A new method to measure the
polymerization shrinkage
kinetics of light cured
composites. J Oral Rehabil. 2005
Apr;32(4):304-14.
[10] Park JW, Ferracane JL.
Measuring the residual stress in
dental composites using a ring
slitting method. Dent Mater.
2005 Sep;21(9):882-9.
[11] Fleming GJ, Hall DP,
Shortall AC, Burke FJ. Cuspal
movement and microleakage in
premolar teeth restored with
posterior filling materials of
varying reported volumetric
shrinkage values.
J Dent. 2005 Feb;33(2):139-46.
Epub 2004 Nov 26.
[12] Fleming GJ, Cara RR, Palin
WM, Burke FJ. Cuspal movement
and microleakage in
premolar teeth restored with
resin-based filling materials
cured using a 'soft-start'
polymerisation protocol. Dent
Mater. 2007 May;23(5):637-43.
Epub 2006 Jul 14.
