CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2013; 07(01): 117-122
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1699005
Original Article
Dental Investigation Society

Mechanical properties of direct and indirect composites after storage for 24 hours and 10 months

Paula Barbosa Alves
1   Department of Prosthodontics, Dentistry School, University of Taubate
William Cunha Brandt
1   Department of Prosthodontics, Dentistry School, University of Taubate
Ana Christina Claro Neves
1   Department of Prosthodontics, Dentistry School, University of Taubate,
Alencar Gonçalves Cunha
1   Department of Prosthodontics, Dentistry School, University of Taubate
Lais Regiane Silva-Concilio
1   Department of Prosthodontics, Dentistry School, University of Taubate
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
30 September 2019 (online)


Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the diametral tensile strength (DTS) and Knoop hardness (KH) of direct (Filtek Z350-3M/ESPE and Charisma-Heraeus Kulzer) and indirect composites (Sinfony-3M/ESPE and Signum-Heraeus Kulzer) kept in storage for two periods of time, 24 hours and 10 months, in distilled water.

Methods: Twenty-five specimens of each material were prepared. DTS (n=10) was tested using a universal testing machine (Versat, model 2000) at a crosshead speed of 1.0 mm/min. KH (n=5) was measured using Knoop micro-hardness (HMV-2000; 50 gf for 15 s). All tests were performed 24 hours after polymerization and after 10 months of storage in distilled water at 37°C. The data were statistically analyzed using Kolmogorov-Smirnov, ANOVA and t-Student (P=.05).

Results:Filtek Z350, Sinfony, and Signum showed higher DTS values than Charisma after 24 hours. After storage, Sinfony and Signum showed higher DTS values because the storage did not influence the DTS values of the indirect composites. Filtek Z350 showed higher KH values after 24 hours and after storage than other composites; the storage influenced the KH of all composites except Sinfony.

Conclusion:Storage for 10 months did not influence the properties of the indirect composite Sinfony. In general, the indirect composites showed higher DTS values than direct composites, especially after 10 months storage. The direct composite Filtek Z350 obtained the highest KH values regardless of storage. (Eur J Dent 2013;7:117-122)


  • 1 Freiberg RS, Ferracane JL. Evaluation of cure, properties and wear resistance of Artglass dental composite. Am J Dent 1998;11:214-218.
  • 2 Dietschi D, Devigus A. Prefabricated composite veneers: Historical perspectives, indications and clinical application. Eur J Esthet Dent 2011;6:178-87.
  • 3 Brown D. The status of indirect restorative dental materials. Dent Update 1998;25:23-34.
  • 4 Leinfelder KF. New developments in resin restorative systems. J Am Dent Assoc 1997;128:573-581.
  • 5 Da Fonte Porto Carreiro A, Dos Santos Cruz CA, Vergani CE. Hardness and compressive strength of indirect composite resins: Effects of immersion in distilled water. J Oral Rehabil 2004;31:1085-1089.
  • 6 Borba M, Della Bona A, Cecchetti D. Flexural strength and hardness of direct and indirect composites. Braz Oral Res 2009;23:5-10.
  • 7 Soares CJ, Pizi EC, Fonseca RB, Martins LR. Mechanical properties of light-cured composites polymerized with several additional post-curing methods. Oper Dent 2005;30:389-94.
  • 8 Santana IL, Lodovici E, Matos JR, Medeiros IS, Miyazaki CL, Rodrigues-Filho LE. Effect of experimental heat treatment on mechanical properties of resin composites. Braz Dent J 2009;20:205-210.
  • 9 Ferracane JL, Berge HX, Condon JR. In vitro aging of dental composites in water--effect of degree of conversion, filler volume, and filler/matrix coupling. J Biomed Mater Res 1998;42:465-472.
  • 10 Takeshige F, Kawakami Y, Hayashi M, Ebisu S. Fatigue behavior of resin composites in aqueous environments. Dent Mater 2007;23:893-899.
  • 11 Alomari Q, Al-Kanderi B, Qudeimat M, Omar R. Re-Treatment Decisions for Failed Posterior Restorations among Dentists in Kuwait. Eur J Dent 2010;4:41-49.
  • 12 Montenegro AC, do Couto CF, Ventura PR, Gouvea CV, Machado AN. In vitro comparative analysis of resistance to compression of laboratory resin composites and a ceramic system. Indian J Dent Res 2010;21:68-71.
  • 13 Anusavice KJ. Phillips: science of dental materials. 11th ed. St. Louis: W B Saunders; 2003.
  • 14 Della Bona A, Benetti P, Borba M, Cecchetti D. Flexural and diametral tensile strength of composite resins. Braz Oral Res 2008;22:84-89.
  • 15 McCabe JF, Kagi S. Mechanical properties of a composite inlay material following post-curing. Br Dent J 1991;171:246-248.
  • 16 Drummond JL. Degradation, fatigue, and failure of resin dental composite materials. J Dent Res 2008;87:710-719.
  • 17 Souza RO, Ozcan M, Michida SM, de Melo RM, Pavanelli CA, Bottino M A, Soares LE, Martin AA. Conversion degree of indirect resin composites and effect of thermocycling on their physical properties. J Prosthodont 2010;19:218-225.
  • 18 Freiberg RS, Ferracane JL. Evaluation of cure, properties and wear resistance of Artglass dental composite. Am J Dent 1998;11:214-218.
  • 19 Satsukawa H, Koizumi H, Tanoue N, Nemoto M, Ogino T, Matsumura H. Properties of an indirect composite material polymerized with two different laboratory polymerizing systems. Dent Mater J 2005;24:377-381.
  • 20 Papadopoulos T, Sarafianou A, Hatzikyriakos A. Colour stability of veneering composites after accelerated aging. Eur J Dent 2010;4:137-142.
  • 21 Ferracane JL, Condon JR. Post-cure heat treatments for composites: Properties and fractography. Dent Mater 1992;8:290-295.