Competitive Product Comparison Dentsply Caulk Esthet•X Micro Matrix Restorative Material

Competitive Product Comparison
Dentsply Caulk Esthet•X™ Micro Matrix Restorative Material
Dentsply Caulk Esthet•X Micro Matrix
Restorative Material
Composition
•
Resin: urethane modified BIS-GMA, TEGDMA
and BIS-EMA
•
Filler: Barium alumino fluoroborosilicate glass
and Silica
•
Average particle size: 0.6-0.8 microns
•
Loading 77% (w/w) or 60% (by volume)
Shades
•
31 shades available in Compules™ tips and
syringes.
•
Translucent Enamel Shades: CE WE YE AE GE
•
Regular Body Shades:
W XL U
A1 A2 A3 A3.5 A4
B1 B2 B3 B5 (Dark Yellow)
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 (Extra Gray Brown)
D2 D3
•
Opacious Dentin Shades:
W-O A2-0 A4-O B2-O C1-0 C4-0 D3-0
A combination of SureFil™ Composite (as a dentin
replacement) followed by Esthet•X for the enamel replacement is highlighted for posterior restorations.
The shade guide consists of 23 tabs with multiple shades
(usually 1 of each opacity level). The tab handle and back
of the shade guide provides the “recipe” for each shade tab
(lists the individual components). No individual shades are
shown.
Claims
Indications
•
Direct anterior and posterior restorations, direct and indirect
veneers, indirect inlays and onlays
The most complete esthetic restorative available
to build natural looking teeth
•
A brilliant, durable polish comparable to
microfills.
Technique
•
Instructions state that increments less than 2mm thickness
are cured for 20 seconds.
Physical properties of an advanced hybrid
composite – high fracture toughness
•
Less sensitive to ambient light
•
Handling – non-sticky, resists slumping, sculptable
3M ESPE Technical Hotline: 1-800-634-2249
1
Dentsply Caulk Esthet•X™ Micro Matrix Restorative Material
Competitive Product Comparison (continued)
Results and Discussion
Polish retention
Analysis of the particle size indicates the filler distribution
is very similar to 3M™ ESPE™ Filtek™ Z250 Universal
Restorative. Polished samples of 3M™ ESPE™ Filtek™ A110
Anterior Restorative (a microfill) and Esthet•X were
subjected to 2000 cycles of toothbrush abrasion. There are
significant differences in the surfaces. The Filtek A110
restorative surface maintains its smoothness while the
Esthet•X surface shows significant roughness.
Shrinkage
Using the test methodology described by Watts
and Cash (Meas. Sci.
Technol. 2(1991) 788-794)
volumetric shrinkage of
Filtek Z250 restorative and
Esthet•X were compared.
The shrinkage of Esthet•X
composite is 28% greater
than that for Filtek Z250
restorative.
4.0
3.0
% 2.0
1.0
0.0
Esthet•X
Filtek Z250
In-vitro wear
Additionally, the surface of Esthet•X was compared to
Filtek Z250 restorative after 150,000 cycles on the 3-body
in-vitro wear test. The surfaces appear to be very similar
which indicates Esthet•X behaves more like a hybrid when
subjected to abrasion.
SEMs of 3M™ ESPE™ Filtek™ Z250 Universal Restorative
(l), and Esthet•X (r), after 3-body wear.
The physical properties measured of Filtek Z250 restorative
were found to be better than or the same as Esthet•X in all
tests.
Fracture toughness
The wet fracture toughness (measured at the MDRCBB,
U of MN) of Filtek Z250 restorative was found
to be 15% greater than that of Esthet•X.
3.0
microns/40,000 cycles
SEMs of 3M™ ESPE™ Filtek™ A110 Anterior Restorative (l)
and Esthet•X (r), after toothbrush abrasion.
The wear rates of Filtek
Z250 restorative and
Esthet•X composite were
determined using an invitro 3-body wear test for
200,000 cycles. The wear
rate of Esthet•X composite
was 68% higher than that
of Filtek Z250 restorative.
2.0
1.0
0.0
Esthet•X
Filtek Z250
Conclusions
•
Esthet•X does not exhibit the polish retention
of a microfill.
•
The wear rate of Esthet•X is 68% greater than
that of Filtek Z250 restorative.
•
The shrinkage of Esthet•X is 28% greater than
that of Filtek Z250 restorative.
•
The fracture toughness of Filtek Z250 restorative
was 15% greater than that of Esthet•X.
•
The Esthet•X shade guide provided does not show
an individual shade so adjustments beyond the
shade recipe are more difficult. Esthet•X requires
thinner increment depths so will take a dentist
longer to place than a Filtek Z250 restorative
restoration.
Esthet•X and SureFil are trademarks of Dentsply Caulk. 3M, ESPE and Filtek are
trademarks of 3M ESPE or 3M ESPE AG.
3M Center, Building 275-2SE-03
St. Paul, MN 55144-1000
2
40% Pre-consumer waste paper
10% Post-consumer waste paper
Printed in U.S.A.
© 3M IPC 2001 70-2009-3406-8
`