Conventional and microfilled composite resins. Part II. Chip fractures.

Dentists are accustomed to advantages and disadvantages in the materials at their disposal. This article was concerned with one disadvantage of microfilled composite resins, namely, chip fractures. Probably due to their higher coefficient of thermal expansion, higher water sorption, higher polymerization shrinkage, and lower tensile strengths, cohesive as well as adhesive chip fractures occur three to four times more often with microfilled composite resins than with conventional composite resins. Microfilled composite resins are indicated for esthetic purposes. They are contraindicated for Class IV and stress-bearing restorations. They are indicated for limited use in Class I restorations where esthetics is of primary importance. The technique of use must include acid-etching and intermediate bonding. The microfilled composite resins enjoy a smooth finish and high luster. This offers advantages in areas where smoothness is paramount. They may replace conventional composite resins for resurfacing existing restorations and veneering stained or mottled anterior teeth. They are indicated for treatment of cervical erosion.