Cosmetic Dentistry - Composite Fillings

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 Filtek Supreme:

To understand WHY our nanotechnology is better, you have to first understand how it is different.

3M Filtek 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 very 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.”


Some Research Articles

[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
[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.