The influence of a packable resin composite, conventional resin composite and amalgam on molar cuspal stiffness

Packable resin composites may offer improved properties and clinical performance over conventional resin composites or dental amalgam. This in vitro study examined the cuspal stiffness of molars restored with a packable resin composite, a conventional posterior microfilled resin composite and amalgam. Forty-eight intact caries-free human third molars were distributed into four treatment groups (n=12) so that the mean cross-sectional areas of all groups were equal. Standardized MOD cavity preparations were made and specimens restored using one of four restorative materials: (1) a spherical particle amalgam (Tytin); (2) Tytin amalgam with a dentin adhesive liner (OptiBond Solo); (3) a conventional microfilled posterior resin composite (Heliomolar); (4) a packable posterior resin composite (Prodigy Posterior). Cuspal stiffness was measured using a Bionix 200 biomaterials testing machine (MTS). Specimens were loaded vertically to 300 N at a crosshead speed of 1.0 mm/minute. Stiffness was measured at 10 intervals: (1) prior to cavity preparation (intact); (2) following cavity preparation, but before restoration; (3) seven days after restoration; then (4) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 12 months after restoration. All specimens were stored at 37 degrees C in deionized water throughout the study and thermocycled (5 degrees/55 degrees C; 2000 cycles) monthly for 12 months. Repeated Measures ANOVA revealed significant differences among treatment groups over time (p<0.0001). Cavity preparation reduced cuspal stiffness by more than 60%. At 12 months, the cuspal stiffness of restored teeth was, on average, 58% that of intact specimens. Neither the packable nor the conventional resin composite increased cuspal stiffness over that of amalgam.