®

The Heliomolar Family:

®
Heliomolar
®
Heliomolar Flow
®
Heliomolar HB

Scientific Documentation
 ®
Scientific Documentation Heliomolar Family Page 2 of 18

Table of Contents

1. Introduction........................................................................................................................ 3
1.1 Heliomolar...................................................................................................................................3
1.2 Heliomolar Flow .........................................................................................................................3
1.3 Heliomolar HB.............................................................................................................................3

2. Technical Data ................................................................................................................... 4

3. Physical Studies ................................................................................................................ 5

3.1 Abrasion......................................................................................................................................5
3.2 Shade stability ............................................................................................................................5
3.3 Physical data ..............................................................................................................................6
3.4 Fluoride release..........................................................................................................................6
3.5 Polymerization shrinkage..........................................................................................................6
3.6 Marginal adaptation ...................................................................................................................7

4. Clinical Studies .................................................................................................................. 8

4.1 Heliomolar...................................................................................................................................8
4.2 Heliomolar HB.............................................................................................................................9

5. Toxicology........................................................................................................................ 11
5.1 Acute oral toxicity ................................................................................................................... 11
5.2 Compatibility with the mucous membrane and local irritation of skin ............................. 11
5.3 Elution tests............................................................................................................................. 11
5.4 Ytterbium trifluoride................................................................................................................ 11
5.5 Sensitization ............................................................................................................................ 11
5.6 Mutagenic properties.............................................................................................................. 11
5.7 Literature on toxicology ......................................................................................................... 12

6. Literature .......................................................................................................................... 13
 ®
Scientific Documentation Heliomolar Family Page 3 of 18

1. Introduction
In the last few years, the growing call for invisible restorations and the search for alternative
materials to amalgam have led to an increase in the demand for composite materials. In
1984, Ivoclar Vivadent introduced Heliomolar, which has become one of the most widely
accepted dental composite materials. In 1994, CRA wrote that Heliomolar was being
successfully used all over the world since its introduction in 1984 and even eleven years after
its launch it continued to be one of the best composite materials. In April 1999, Heliomolar
Flow, a flowable version of Heliomolar, was introduced to cover all the requirements of
dentists in terms of indications and application procedures. Furthermore, in December 2000,
a condensible product variant called Heliomolar HB was launched, completing the range of
Heliomolar materials.

1.1 Heliomolar
Heliomolar falls into the category of inhomogeneous microfilled composites. In dentistry,
microfillers are materials whose filler particles are smaller than 1µm. Prepolymers may be
added to the microfilled composite to enhance its consistency and physical properties as well
as to increase its filler content. The prepolymers used in Heliomolar are microfilled pre-
polymerized composites that exhibit virtually the same properties as the matrix.

1.2 Heliomolar Flow

Heliomolar Flow is a flowable version of Heliomolar. The monomer content is slightly higher
than that of the original Heliomolar to render the material flowable. Because of its flowable
consistency, Heliomolar Flow is particularly indicated for Class V defects, mini-cavities of all
kinds, preventive resin restorations as well as the repair of composite and ceramic veneers.
Furthermore, many dentists use Helimolar flow as a first thin increment under Heliomolar or
Heliomolar HB restorations because the flowable consistency facilitates adaptation to the
cavity bottom and walls.

1.3 Heliomolar HB
Heliomolar HB is the latest member of the Heliomolar family. The adjunct HB stands for
Heavy Body. Heliomolar HB falls into the category of what are known as packable or
condensible composites. Ivoclar Vivadent offers Heliomolar in three different consistencies to
meet the varying requirements placed on the handling properties of composites. Heliomolar
HB is particularly suitable for direct restorations in the posterior region.
Two slight alterations of the original Heliomolar were required to obtain the heavy-body
consistency of Heliomolar HB. Firstly, the material was rendered less sticky by slightly
modifying the proportional composition of the monomer mixture, ie the portion of the
comparatively large copolymers was lowered while the portion of microfillers was slightly
raised. As a result, the viscosity of the material increased. Secondly, a rheology modifier in
the form of an organically modified compound silicate was added to the material. The
compound silicate, which contains surface linked, long chain organic groups, increases the
firmness of Heliomolar HB but does not compromise the material’s modelling properties.
 ®
Scientific Documentation Heliomolar Family Page 4 of 18

2. Technical Data

Standard composition Heliomolar Heliomolar HB Heliomolar Flow

Bis-GMA, Urethane dimethacrylate 19 18 32
Decandiol dimethacrylate 3 5 -
Triethylene glycol dimethacrylate - - 8
Highly dispersed silicon dioxide, 77 76 59
Prepolymer, Ytterbium trifluoride
Stabilizers, catalysts and pigments <1 <1 <1
(Figures in wt%)

Physical properties Unit Heliomolar Heliomolar HB Heliomolar Flow

Flexural strength MPa 100 125 96
Modulus of elasticity MPa 6000 6500 4400
Compressive strength MPa 340 315 260
Vickers hardness MPa 350 415 300
Water absorption µg/mm3 25 24.9 < 30
Water solubility µg/mm3 1 1.5 <3
Radiopacity % Al 250 265 200
Total filler content wt % 66.7 66.7 51
Total filler content vol % 46 46 30

In accordance with: ISO 4049 – Polymer-based filling, restorative and luting materials
 ®
Scientific Documentation Heliomolar Family Page 5 of 18

3. Physical Studies

3.1 Abrasion
When Heliomolar was introduced, it set a new standard in terms of resistance to abrasion of
composite materials. In 1987, Tani et al published a study, in which Heliomolar’s high
resistance to abrasion was confirmed. Furthermore, in a study conducted by Leinfelder in
1991, Heliomolar was shown to be one of the materials that exhibited the lowest wear. The
experimental of this study included 400,000 cycles of repeated stress and PMMA pellets as
the abrasive. While the majority of the composite materials against which Heliomolar was
compared in 1987 and 1991 are no longer available, Heliomolar as well as Heliomolar Flow
and Heliomolar HB, the two new Heliomolar versions, still rank among the leading
composites in terms of resistance to abrasion (Sorensen 2000, Report on file).

12 60

10 50
Abrasion (µm3x10-3)

8 40
Abrasion (µm)
6 30

4 20

2 10

0 0
Clearfil Estilux Ful-fil Lite Fil P Occlusin P-10 P-30 Photo Heliomolar Adaptic-2 Bis-Fil Clearfil Herculite Occlusin P-10 P-30 P-50 Heliomolar
Posterior Posterior Clearfil A Posterior

Tani et al (1987) Leinfelder (1991)

60

Wear of Heliomolar, measured in three independent

50

40
studies: The results of Tani and Leinfelder are taken
Verlust (µm)

30 from the above-mentioned studies. The results of

20 Sorensen are on file.
10

0
Filtek Z- Herculite Prodigy Pyramid Solitaire Surefil Heliomolar Heliomolar Heliomolar
250 Flow HB

Abrasion Attrition

Sorensen (2000)

3.2 Shade stability

Heliomolar exhibited a high degree of shade stability in trials involving artificial ageing
(Powers et al, 1988). With regard to most of the parameters examined, Heliomolar
demonstrated the least change when subjected to artificial ageing.

∆Y ∆S ∆K ∆CR
Heliomolar -1.6 -0.02 0.021 0.003
Herculite -1.9 0.13 0.043 0.070
P-30 -9.3 0.07 0.017 0.068
Bis-Fil II -2.3 0.04 0.039 0.021
Estilux Posterior 4.8 0.32 -0.006 0.122
Distalite 1.6 0.03 -0.14 0.006
Optical stability of Heliomolar
∆Y = Change in the degree of transmission ∆S = Change in light scattering
∆K = Change in the absorption coefficient ∆CR = Change in opacity
 ®
Scientific Documentation Heliomolar Family Page 6 of 18

3.3 Physical data

Compressive Flexural strength Flexural modulus

strength [N/mm²] [GPa]
[N/mm²]
Heliomolar HB 380 114 7.3
Tetric Ceram HB 338 138 13.2
P-60 524 170 15
Solitaire 412 54 3
Alert 399 119 10
SureFil 426 131 11
Prodigy Condense 371 104 8
Tooth enamel 384 90 84
Munoz (Loma Linda University, California, USA)

3.4 Fluoride release

Arends und Ruben (1988) measured the fluoride releasing capabilities of dental composites.
Heliomolar was proven to continuously release fluoride for over one year. Moreover, Arends
and Zee (1990), who conducted a study using an artificial mouth model, showed that dentin
and enamel take up the fluoride released by Heliomolar

12

10

8
[µg/cm²]

6 Fluoride release of Heliomolar (Arends and Ruben

1988)
4

0
0 100 200 300 400
Zeit [Tage]

3.5 Polymerization shrinkage

Among all the composites commercially available, Heliomolar is one of the materials that
demonstrates the lowest polymerization shrinkage (Feilzer et al, 1988; Soltez, 2000).

Feilzer et al, 1988 Soltez, 2000

Heliomolar 2.2 ± 0.1 1.96 ± 0.07
Heliomolar HB 2.19 ± 0.10
Tetric Ceram 2.76 ± 0.05
Tetric Ceram HB 2.55 ± 0.01
Esthet X 2.62 ± 0.04
Point 4 3.01 ± 0.10
 ®
Scientific Documentation Heliomolar Family Page 7 of 18

Brilliant Lux 3.5 ± 0.0

Clearfil Posterior 4.5 ± 0.5
Herculite 3.0 ± 0.2
P-30 2.6 ± 0.3
Prisma Fil 3.3 ± 0.2
Polymerization shrinkage in vol %, 1 hour after curing. The data of Soltez (Fraunhofer Insitut Werkstoffmechanik,
Freiburg, Germany) were measured for Ivoclar Vivadent.

3.6 Marginal adaptation

In a study conducted by Stähle and Ackermann in 1991, 70 percent of the occlusal
restorations fabricated of Heliomolar demonstrated tight margins after they were exposed to
cyclic loading at 200 N. By contrast, none of the gold inlays, which were inserted using zinc
phosphate, exhibited tight margins.
7

5
Depth of dye penetration:
Anzahl Restaurationen

3
0 = no dye penetration
1 = dye penetration into the upper half of the restoration
2
2 = dye penetration into the lower half of the restoration
1 3 = dye penetration down to the cavity floor
0
0 1 2 3
Grad der Farbstoffpenetration

Heliomolar Gold

Study on marginal integrity by Stähle and Ackermann

(1991)
 ®
Scientific Documentation Heliomolar Family Page 8 of 18

4. Clinical Studies

4.1 Heliomolar
Heliomolar was launched in 1984. Since then, several three- and five-year studies on the
material have been accomplished.
3-year studies
Knibbs and Smart (1992) conducted a comparative three-year study with Heliomolar and
amalgam. Fifty-two fillings of each material were placed and monitored in terms of marginal
adaptation, surface quality, anatomical shape, and proximal antagonist contact. No
significant difference in the performance of Heliomolar and amalgam was found; both
materials produced favourable clinical results.
Lundin et al (1990) monitored the clinical performance of six different dental composites over
three years. The materials, which were placed in Class II cavities, showed very low failure
rates. Heliomolar demonstrated the lowest abrasion of all six materials
Taylor et al (1994) summarized the data of ten clinical three-year studies on the wear of
restorative materials. Heliomolar ranked second among the 28 composites examined.
In a clinical three-year study conducted by CRA in the US, Heliomolar produced the best
results among the 21 restorations investigated. The following aspects were monitored:
abrasion, marginal adaptation, surface quality, antagonist abrasion, resistance to fracture
and shade adaptation.
Clinical Research Associates Newsletter, Volume 18, Issue 5 May 1994: Comparative
performance of 21 class 2 materials at 3 years

5-year studies
In a clinical study conducted by Leinfelder (Mazer and Leinfelder, 1992), 68 Class I and II
restorations were placed using Heliomolar. The mean abrasion was as low as 7.7 µm/year..
According to Leinfelder, the Heliomolar restorations were characterized by a high degree of
shade stability, surface smoothness, resistance to abrasion and acceptance by patients
throughout the five years. During the first two years, none of the restorations demonstrated
secondary caries. Only two restorations showed signs of incipient secondary caries.
Leinfelder attributes the low rate of secondary caries to the fact that Heliomolar releases
fluoride ions.

Abrasion after 2 years Secondary caries after 2 years

Heliomolar 12 µm 0%
Herculite 30 µm 3%
Bisfil-1 42 µm 4.5 %
P-10 135 µm 2%

The authors compared the data on abrasion and secondary caries with the corresponding
data of other materials. Heliomolar restorations demonstrated the lowest abrasion and were
the least prone to developing secondary caries (Mazer and Leinfelder, 1992).
Setcos and Phillips (1995) compared Heliomolar and amalgam in a clinical study on Class I
and II restorations. The observation period was five years and the following aspects were
monitored: shade stability, marginal discoloration, anatomic shape, marginal integrity,
secondary caries, abrasion and sensitivity to temperature. The results prove the favourable
clinical performance of Heliomolar.
 ®
Scientific Documentation Heliomolar Family Page 9 of 18

A CRA Newsletters (1989) summarized the results of clinical trials conducted on 21 different
dental composites placed in Class II cavities. In the trials, which lasted between two to five
years, the following aspects were monitored: marginal adaptation, proximal contact areas,
postoperative sensitivity, secondary caries, surface quality, discoloration and shade. The
Heliomolar restorations were attested favourable ratings with regard to all of these aspects.
Moreover, Heliomolar demonstrated the lowest abrasion of all the materials tested.
If the results of the 3- and 5-year studies are all added up and a loss analysis according to
Kaplan-Meier is conducted, very high survival rates are observed.

3-year studies 5-year studies

Base line 100% 100%
1 year 99.6 ± 0.4 100%
2 years 98.0 ± 0.9 100%
3 years 96.3 ± 1.2 98 ± 1%
4 years 97 ± 2%
5 years 93 ± 2%

Conclusion: Heliomolar is one of the most proven and clinically successful

dental composites on the market.

4.2 Heliomolar HB
Clinical studies to examine Heliomolar HB have been initiated. The 12-month results are
available.
Head of study: Dr Jim R Dunn, D Carlos Munoz
Loma Linda University, California, USA
Objective: Examine the clinical performance of Heliomolar HB
Experimental: Fifty Class II cavities were placed in a total of 32 patients, using
Heliomolar HB and Excite dentin adhesive. Heliomolar HB was applied
in increments. The restorations were examined after six and twelve
months. The next follow-up evaluation is due to be conducted 24
months after placement.

Results: Heliomolar HB
Criteria 1 months 6 months 12 months
Restorations evaluated 44 48 43
Marginal adaptation 100% A 100% A 88% A
Interproximal anatomical shape 98% A 100% A 95% A
Post-operative sensitivity 90% A 96% A 91% A
Secondary caries 100% A 100% A 100% A
Marginal discoloration 96% A 98% A 88% A
Proximal contact areas 86% A 96% A 91% A
Surface polish 100% A 100% A 100% A
Retention 100 % 100% 98% A
 ®
Scientific Documentation Heliomolar Family Page 10 of 18

Conclusion: The evaluation conducted six months after placement showed

excellent results for Heliomolar HB. After 12 months only one
restoration had to be replaced and no other Charlie ratings were
observed.

Head of study: Dr Giovanni Dondi dall’Orologio

University of Bologna, Italy
Objective: Examine the clinical performance of Heliomolar HB, placed in Class I
and II cavities. Place an initial base layer of Heliomolar Flow in half of
all the restorations. After 6 months all patients and after 12 months 62
patients could be evaluated. The next recall is planned after 24
months.
Experimental: Restorations fabricated of Heliomolar HB and Heliomolar
Flow/Heliomolar HB were placed in 62 patients according to a split
mouth design. Excite was used as the adhesive. Heliomolar HB was
placed in increments. The restorations were evaluated after six
months. The next follow-up evaluation is due to be conducted at 12
months after placement.

Results: Heliomolar HB
Criteria Baseline 6 months 12 months
Marginal integrity 100% A 100% A 87% A, 13% B
Discoloration 100% A 100% A 100% A
Secondary caries 100% A 100% A 100% A
Surface quality 100% A 100% A 100% A
Anatomical shape 100% A 100% A 100% A
Post-operative sensitivity 97% A, 3% B 97% A, 3% B 91% A, 9% B
Retention 100% A 100% A 100% A

Heliomolar Flow & Heliomolar HB

Criteria Baseline 6 months 12 months
Marginal integrity 100% A 100% A 100% A
Discoloration 100% A 100% A 100% A
Secondary caries 100% A 100% A 100% A
Surface quality 100% A 100% A 100% A
Anatomical shape 100% A 100% A 100% A
Post-operative sensitivity 98% A, 2% B 98% A. 2% B 100% A
Retention 100% A 100% A 100% A

Conclusion: The evaluation conducted six months after placement shows

favourable results for both kinds of Heliomolar HB restorations,
i.e., those placed with Heliomolar Flow and those placed without
Heliomolar Flow. The 12 months results confirm the excellent
clinical success of Heliomolar HB. The data indicate that in the
long term the use of Heliomolar Flow as first thin increment may
result in better margins.
 ®
Scientific Documentation Heliomolar Family Page 11 of 18

5. Toxicology
Heliomolar is applied directly into the cavity. The resin is light-cured in the oral cavity.
The following toxicological risks had to be investigated:
y Acute oral risk: patients may accidentally swallow the portion of uncured Heliomolar
placed in the cavity
y Local incompatibility with surrounding tissue that comes into contact with the material
y Possible sensitizing reactions
y Peroral long-term risk by eluted low-molecular components
y Mutagenic potential of eluted low-molecular components

5.1 Acute oral toxicity

Tests on the acute oral toxicity of the uncured formulation produced the following
values:
LD50 (rats) oral p.o. > 5000 mg/kg [1]
ISO filler RO = HELIOMOLAR RO without ytterbium trifluoride
LD50 (rats) p.o. > 5000 mg/kg [2]
Ytterbium trifluoride
LD50 (rats) p.o. > 5000 mg/kg [3]

5.2 Compatibility with the mucous membrane and local irritation of skin
A primary irritation index of 0.3 was measured in the mucuous membrane. On the basis of
this result, the material may be regarded as having a minimally irritating effect in an uncured
state [4]. The skin irritation index was also 0.3, indicating a minimal primary irritation effect on
skin [5].

5.3 Elution tests

A mutation assay was conducted to assess the effect of oral long-term exposure to possible
eluates [6, 7]. Total migration of 230 µg/cm² was measured.

5.4 Ytterbium trifluoride

The toxicity of ytterbium trifluoride in Heliomolar RO is discussed in a comprehensive report
by Dr Manfred Herbst [8]. This report reaches the conclusion that ytterbium trifluoride does
not involve any health risk if it is used as a component of a polymethacrylate-based filling
material.

5.5 Sensitization
Uncured Heliomolar was subjected to a sensitization (maximization) test in guinea pigs. In
this rigorous test [9], slight irritation occurred. However, it may be assumed that the cured
material has no sensitizing effect.

5.6 Mutagenic properties

Mutation did not occur in an Ames test (reversible mutagenicity assay) under the conditions
chosen, neither in the HGPRT genes of V79 cells (Chinese hamster) [10] nor in Salmonella
typhimurium strains (TA 1535, TA 1537, TA 1538, TA 98 and TA 100) [11]. Furthermore, in a
 ®
Scientific Documentation Heliomolar Family Page 12 of 18

chromosome aberration assay conducted on Chinese hamsters, no chromosomal mutations

occurred in correlation with Heliomolar [12]. On the basis of these tests, mutagenic effects of
Heliomolar are not indicated.

Conclusion:
On the basis of the data on hand, an acute or chronic risk for patients is not indicated,
if Heliomolar is used properly.
The results of the clinical studies and the general toxicological data on composite
materials support the above conclusion.
The chemistry of Heliomolar Flow and Heliomolar HB are similar to that of Heliomolar.
The monomer content and the filler composition have only been slightly changed to
modify the consistency of the materials.
Thus, the toxicological data on Heliomolar also apply to Heliomolar Flow and
Heliomolar HB.

5.7 Literature on toxicology

Zahnfüllungen, Swiss Dent 12, 15-19,
[1] RCC Project 048857: Acute Oral Toxicity
1984
(LD50) Study with Heliomolar Radiopaque
in rats. July 1, 1985. [8] Dr. Manfred Herbst: Assessement:
Toxicity of Ytterbiumtrifluoride in
[2] RCC Project 034593: Acute Oral Toxicity
Heliomolar Radiopaque. Liestal, July 20,
(LD50) Study with Isofüller RO in rats. Au-
1985
gust 31, 1984.
[9] RCC Project 205323: Contact
[3] RCC Project 048881: Acute Oral Toxicity
Hypersensitivity to Heliomolar
(LD50) Study with ytterbium trifluoride, an-
Radiopaque in Albino Guinea Pigs:
hydrous in rats. July 1, 1985
Maximisation Test. April 21 1988
[4] RCC Project 048868: Primary Eye
[10] CCR Project 296324: Salmonella
Irritation Study with Heliomolar
Thyphimurium Reverse Muation Assay
Radiopaque in rabbits. July 30, 1985
with Heliomolar Radiopaque Universal.
[5] RCC Project 048870: Primary Skin August 1992
Irritation Study with Heliomolar
[11] CCR Project 313918: Gene Mutation
Radiopaque in rabbits. July 30, 1985
Assay in Chinese Hamster V79 Cells in
[6] Prüfbericht: Migration von Heliomolar und vitro with Heliomolar Radiopaque
HELIOMOLAR RO nach AP-22. A. Weber, Universal. February 18, 1993
11. März 1985, Schaan FL
[12] CCR Project 313920: Chromosome
[7] Leimgruber R, Thöny D, Weber A: Aberration Assay in Chinese Hamster V79
Elutionstest zur Prüfung auf Anwesenheit Cells in vitro with Heliomolar Radiopaque
extrahier-barer Bestandteile von Universal. April 26, 1993
 ®
Scientific Documentation Heliomolar Family Page 13 of 18

6. Literature
Arend J, van der Zee Y
Fluoride uptake in bovine enamel and dentin Ludin SA, Andersson B, Koch G, Rasmusson CG
from fluoride-releasing composite resin Class II composite resin restorations: A three
Quitessence International 21 (1990) 541-544 year clinical study of six different posterior
composites
Arends J, Ruben J Swed Dent J 14 (1990) 104-115
Fluoride release from a composite
Quitessence International 19 (1988) 513-514 Mazer R, Leinfelder K
Evaluating a microfill posterior composite resin
Clinical Research Associates - a five year study
Comparative performance of 21 class 2 J Am Dent Assoc 123 (1992) 33-38
materials at 3 years
Clinical Research Associates Newsletter, Volume Powers JM, Bakus ER, Goldberg AJ
18, Issue 5 May 1994 In vitro color changes of posterior composites
Dent Mater 4 (1988) 151-154
Clinical Research Associates
Restorative resins, new products, one year Setcos JC
clinical performance Heliomolar radiopaque als Amalgamersatz?
Clinical Research Associates Newsletter, Volume Phillip J 12 (1995) 93-95
18, Issue 11 November 1994
Staehle HJ, Ackermann J
Feilzer AJ, De Gee AJ, Davidson CL Experimentelle Untersuchungen über die
Curing contraction of composites and glass- Dichtigkeit von okklusalen Kompositfüllungen
ionomer cements im Vergleich zu okklusalen Metallinlays
J Prosthetic Dent 59 (1988) 297-300 ZWR 100 (1991) 648-653

Knibbs PJ, Smart ER Tani Y, Goto H, Ida K

The clinical performance of a posterior Wear of posterior composite resins
composite resin restorative material, HELIOMOLAR Dental materials Journal 6 (1987) 165-174
RO: 3-year report
J Oral Rehabil 19(1992) 231--237 Taylor DF, Bayne SC, Leinfelder KF, Davis S, Koch
GG
Leinfelder KF, Mirshaahidi M, Cury C, O'Neal W Pooling of long term clinical data for posterior
An in vitro wear device for determining wear of composites
posterior composites Am J Dent 7 (1994) 167-174
J Dent Res 70 (1991) 345

Publications on Heliomolar and Heliomolar Flow

Restorative resins, new products, status report Ashe MJ, Tripp GA, Eichmiller FC, George LA,
#1 -clinical characteristics Meiers JC
CRA Newsletter 17 (1993) 0 Surface roughness of glass-ceramic insert -
composite restorations: assessing several
Alternatives for class 3 restorations (results of polishing techniques
CRA clinical trial of 21 materials at 3 years) J Am Dent Assoc 127 (1996) 1495-1500
CRA Newsletter 18 (1994) 1-4
Bayne SC, Heymann HO, Edward J, Swift JR
Alhadainy HA, Abdalla AI Update on dental composite restorations
2-year clinical evaluation of dentin bonding J Am Dent Assoc 125 (1994) 687-701
systems
Am J Dent 9 (1996) 77-79 Bollen CML, Lambrechts P, Quiryen M
Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard
Arends J, Ruben J, Dijkman AG materials to the threshold surface roughness for
The effect of fluoride release from a fluoride- bacterial plaque retention: A review of the
containing composite resin on secondary caries: literature
an in vitro study Dent Mater 13 (1997) 258-269
Quintessence Int 21 (1990) 671-674
Bose M, Ott KHR
Arends J, Van der Zee Y Glättung von (Füllungs-) Werkstoffen,
Fluoride uptake in bovine enamel and dentin Zahnschmelz und Dentin durch
from a fluoride-releasing composite resin Prophylaxepasten in vitro
Quintessence Int 21 (1990) 541-544 Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 50 (1995) 840-843
 ®
Scientific Documentation Heliomolar Family Page 14 of 18

Bouschlicher MR, Cobb DS, Boyer DB A clinical trial of four light curing posterior
Radiopacity of compomers, flowable and composite resins: 9-month report
conventional resin composites for posterior Quintessence Int 20 (1989) 641-652
restorations
Oper Dent 24 (1999) 20-25 Dietschi D, Holz J
Klinische Untersuchung von vier lichthärtenden
Bryant RW, Hodge KLV Kompositmaterialien für den Seitenzahnbereich
A clinical evaluation of posterior composite resin - Ergebnisse nach zwei Jahren (1)
restorations Quintessenz 42 (1991) 743-751
Aust Dent J 39 (1994) 77-81
Dietschi D, Magne P, Holz J
Bryant RW, Marzbani N, Hodge KLV Recent trends in esthetic restorations for
Occlusal margin defects around different types of posterior teeth
composite resin restorations in posterior teeth Quintessence Int 25 (1994) 659-677
Oper Dent 17 (1992) 215-221
Dijkman GEHM, Arends J
Castline JM, TU SJ Secondary Caries in situ around Fluoride-
Measured light intensities at simulated dentin/ Releasing Light-Curing Composites: A
composite bonding interfaces Quantitative Model Investigation on Four
J Dent Res 79 (2000) 280 Materials
Caries Res 26 (1992) 351-357
Christensen GJ
Restorative Dentistry: An update for Dijkman GEHM, De Vries J, Lodding A, Arends J
Practitioners, Educators, Examining Boards Long-term fluoride release of visible ligth-
J Am Dent Assoc 126 (1995) 1165-1168 activated composites in vitro: a correlation with
in situ demineralisation data
Christensen GJ, Christensen RP Caries Res 27 (1993) 117-123
A new technique for the restoration of worn
anterior teeth - 1995 Donly K, Gomez C
J Am Dent Assoc 126 (1995) 1543-1546 In vitro demineralization-remineralization of
enamel caries at restoration margins utilizing
Chung K fluoride-releasing composite resin
Effects of finishing and polishing procedures on Quintessence Int 25 (1994) 355-358
surface texture of resin composites
Dent Mater 10 (1994) 325-330 Fallo GJ, Wakefield CW
Effects of uncontrolled outdoor storage on the
Condon JR, Ferracane JL polymerization, manipulation, and appearance
Assessing the effect of composite formulation on of visible light-cured composite resin and resin-
polymerization stress modified glass ionomer materials
J Am Dent Assoc 131 (2000) 497-503 Military Medicine 161 (1996) 290-293

Condon JR, Ferracane JL Feilzer AJ, De Gee AJ, Davidson CL

Polymerization contraction stress of commercial Relaxation of Polymerization Contraction Shear
composites Stress by Hygroscopic Expansion
J Dent Res 77 (1998) 639 J Dent Res 69 (1990) 36-39

Condon JR, Ferracane JL Feilzer AJ, De Gee AJ, Davidson CL

Evaluation of composite wear with a new multi- Curing contraction of composites and glass-
mode oral wear simulator ionomer cements
Dent Mater 12 (1996) 218-226 J Prosthet Dent 59 (1988) 297-300

Davidson CL, Abdalla AI Ferracane JL

Effect of thermal and mechanical load cycling on Current Trends in Dental Composites
the marginal integrity of Class II resin composite Crit Rev Oral biol Med 6 (1995) 302-318
restorations
Am J Dent 6 (1993) 39-42 Ferracane JL, Condon JR
Post-cure heat treatments for composites:
De Backer J, Dermaut L properties and fractography
Visible ligth sources and posterior visible ligth Dent Mater 8 (1992) 290-295
cured resins: a practical mixture
Quintessence Int 17 (1986) 635-641 Ferracane JL, Mitchem JC, Condon JR, Todd R
Wear and marginal breakdown of composites
De Goes MF, Garcia-Godoy F, Cardenas L with various degrees of cure
Linear and volumetric polymerization shrinkage J Dent Res 76 (1997) 1508-1516
of the restorative materials
J Dent Res 78 (1999) 484 Francci C, Perdigao J, Cardoso PEC, Meira JBC,
Nunes MF
Dietschi D, Ciucchi B, Holz J
 ®
Scientific Documentation Heliomolar Family Page 15 of 18

The effect of composite resin, adhesive system, Kanca III J

and low-viscosity liner on microleakage Visible light-activated composite resins for
J Dent Res 78 (1999) 388 posterior use - a comparison of surface
hardness and uniformity of cure. Update
Freilich MA, Goldberg AJ, Gilpatrick RO, Simonsen Quintessence Int 16 (1985) 687-690
RJ
Three-year occlusal wear of posterior composite Kawai K, Leinfelder K
restorations In vitro evaluation of OCA wear resistance of
Dent Mater 8 (1992) 224-228 posterior composites
Dent Mater 11 (1995) 246-251
Frenzel C, Viohl J
Biegefestigkeit von neun Kompositen in Knibbs PJ, Smart ER
Abhängigkeit von verschiedenen The clinical performance of a posterior
Reparaturverfahren composite resin restorative material, Heliomolar
Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 49 (1994) 729-732 RO: 3-year report
J Oral Rehab 19 (1992) 231-237
Fujimitsu T, Kato HItoh K, Wakumoto S
The adaptation of composite to the dentin cavity Krejci I, Stergiou G, Lutz F
wall Einfluss der Nachvergütung auf die
Dent Mater J 8 (1989) 141-146 Verschleissfestigkeit von Kompositmaterialien
Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 46 (1991) 400-406
Fukushima M, Setcos JC, Phillips RW
Marginal fracture of posterior composite resins Lambert D
J Am Dent Assoc 117 (1988) 577-583 Closing diastemas, replacing small amalgams
using Heliomolar einforced microfill restoratives
Fuqua S, Burgess JO, Chan DCN, Nunez A Dental Products Report 0 (2000) 92-93
Recurrent caries in OF restorations in a rodent
model Leinfelder K
J Dent Res 77 (1998) 118 Posterior composite resins: The materials and
their clinical performance
Gogswaardt DC J Am Dent Assoc 126 (1995) 663-676
Die Polymerisationstemperatur lichtvernetzbarer
Seitenzahn-Kompositematerialien in Leinfelder K
Abhängigkeit von der Schichtstärke Using composite resin as a posterior restorative
Zahnärztl Praxis 5 (1995) 10-12 material
J Am Dent Assoc 122 (1991) 65-70
Haak R, Noack MJ
Möglichkeiten der Röntgendiagnostik bei Leinfelder K, Beaudreau RW, Mazer R
Amalgamersatzmaterialien An in vitro device for predicting clinical wear
Quintessenz 47 (1996) 1551-1559 Quintessence Int 20 (1989) 755-761

Hellwig E, Klimek J, Achenbach K Liebenberg WH

Auswirkung der Schichttechnik auf die Direct access to equivocal approximal carious
Polymerisation von zwei lichthärtenden lesions
Komposit-Füllungsmaterialien Quintessence Int 27 (1996) 607-617
Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 46 (1991) 270-273
Lundin SA, Andersson B, Koch G, Rasmusson CG
Herrgott AM, Ziemiecki TL, Dennison JB Class II composite resin restorations: a three-
An evaluation of different composite resin year clinical study of six different posterior
systems finished with various abrasives composites
J Am Dent Assoc 119 (1989) 729-732 Swed Dent J 14 (1990) 105-114

Hibst R, Keller U Mair LH

Randschluss und Haftfestigkeit von The silver sorption layer in dental composites:
Kompositfüllungen - Präparation und three year results
Konditionierung mit dem Er:YAG-Laser Dent Mater J 15 (1999) 408-412
ZWR 104 (1995) 78-83
Mair LH
Hickel R, Kunzelmann KH, Obermeier T An investigation into the permeability of
Die Kompositfüllung im Seitenzahnbereich - Teil I composite materials using silver nitrate
& Teil II Dent Mater 5 (1987) 109-114
ZWR 103 (1994) 610-618
Mair LH
Kanca III J Subsurface compression fatigue in seven dental
Maximizing the cure of posterior light-activated composites
resins Dent Mater 10 (1994) 111-115
Quintessence Int 17 (1986) 25-27
Mair LH, Vowles RW
 ®
Scientific Documentation Heliomolar Family Page 16 of 18

The effect of thermal cycling on the fracture Comparison of two- and three-body wear of
toughness of seven composite restorative glass-ionomers and composites
materials Eur J Oral Sci 104 (1996) 132-137
Dent Mater 5 (1989) 23-26
Pelka M, Frankenberger R, Sindlinger R, Petschelt A
Margolis HC, Moreno EC, Murphy BJ Verschleißsimulation natürlicher
Effect of low levels of fluoride in solution on Zahnhartsubstanzen im abrasiven Kontakt
enamel demineralization in vitro Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 53 (1998) 61-64
J Dent Res 65 (1986) 23-29
Pilo R, Brosh T, Lugassy H, Baharav H, Helft M
Mazer R, Leinfelder K The effect of irradiation time on the shear
Evaluating a microfill posterior composite resin - strength of composites
a five year study Dent Mater 10 (1994) 338-342
J Am Dent Assoc 123 (1992) 33-38
Powers JM, Bakus ER, Goldberg AJ
Mazer R, Leinfelder K, Russell CM In vitro color changes of posterior composites
Degradation of microfilled posterior composite Dent Mater 4 (1988) 151-154
Dent Mater 8 (1992) 185-189
Powers JM, McDowell GC, Lang BR
Milosevic A In vivo wear. Part II: Wear and abrasion of
The influence of surface finish and in-vitro composite restorative materials
pellicle on contact-angle measurement and J Prosthet Dent 60 (1988) 242-249
surface morphology of three commercially
available composite restoratives Prati C
J Oral Rehab 19 (1992) 85-97 Early marginal microleakage in class II resin
composite restorations
Momoi Y, McCabe JF Dent Mater 5 (1989) 392-398
Hygroscopic expansion of resin based
composites during 6 months of water storage Rasmusson CG, Lundin SA
Br Dent J 176 (1994) 91-96 Class II restorations in six different posterior
composite resins: Five-year results.
Mount GJ Swed Dent J 19 (1995) 173-182
The tensile strength of the union between
various glass ionomer cements and various Rees JS, Jacobsen PH
composite resins The polymerization shrinkage of composite
Aust Dent J 34 (1989) 136-146 resins
Dent Mater 5 (1989) 41-44
Munksgaard EC, Nolte J, Kristensen K
Adherence of chewing gum to dental restorative Reich E, Schmalz G, Federlin M
materials Randspaltverhalten von Keramik- und
Am J Dent 8 (1995) 137-139 Kompositinlays in vitro
Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 45 (1990) 656-660
NaBadalung DP, Nicholls JI, Brudvik JS
Frictional resistance of removable partial Reinhardt KJ
dentures with retrofitted resin composite guide Der Einfluss der Lichtquelle auf die
planes Randständigkeit von Kompositfüllungen
Int J Prosthodont 10 (1997) 116-122 Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 46 ( 1991) 132-134

Oden A, Ruyter IE, Oysaed H Reinhardt KJ

Creep and recovery of composites for use in Der Einfluss des Bonders auf die
posterior teeth during static and dynamic Randständigkeit und Belastbarkeit von
compression Komposit-Füllungen
Dent Mater 4 (1988) 147-150 Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 47 (1992) 176-178

Palenik CJ, Setcos JC Retief DH, Mandras RS, Russell CM, Denys FR
Antimicrobial abilities of various dentine bonding Evaluation of the Syntac bonding system
agents and restorative materials Am J Dent 6 (1993) 17-21
J Dent 24 (1996) 289-295
Retief H, Mandras R, Russell CM
Papagiannoulis L, Tzoutzas J, Eliades G Shear bond strength required to prevent
Effect of topical fluoride agents on the microleakage at the dentin/restoration interface
morphologic characteristics and composition of Am J Dent 7 (1994) 43-46
resin composite restorative materials
J Prosthet Dent 77 (1997) 405-413 Rzanny A, Göbel R, Welker D
Quasistatische Prüfungen an 21 Füllungs- und
Pelka M, Ebert J, Schneider H, Krämer N, Petschelt Verblendkomposits
A ZWR 104 (1995) 698-703
 ®
Scientific Documentation Heliomolar Family Page 17 of 18

Rzanny A, Welker D
Biegefestigkeitsprüfungen an Komposits im Taylor DF, Bayne SC, Leinfelder KF, Davis S, Koch
methodischen Vergleich GG
Quintessenz Zahntech 19 (1993) 1467-1473 Pooling of long term clinical data for posterior
composites
Sakaguchi RL, Peters MC, Nelson SR, Douglas WH, Am J Dent 7 (1994) 167-174
Poort HW
Effects of polymerization contraction in Tjan AHL, Chan CA
composite restorations The polishability of posterior composites
J Dent 20 (1992) 178-182 J Prosthet Dent 61 (1989) 138-146

Saunders WP Turner CW, Meiers JC

The marginal microleakage of resin-retained Repair of an aged, contaminated indirect
bridges in association with existing composite composite resin with a direct, visible-light-cured
and amalgam restorations composite resin
Dent Mater 6 (1990) 20-23 Oper Dent 18 (1993) 187-194

Scheufele P Versluis A, Douglas WH, Sakaguchi RL

Suitability of different antagonists for pre-clinical Thermal expansion coefficient of dental
in-vitro wear tests composites measured with strain gauges
J Dent Res 79 (2000) 279 Dent Mater 12 (1996) 290-294

Setcos JC Von Beetzen M, Li J, Nicander I, Sundstrom F

Heliomolar radiopaque als Amalgamersatz? Eine Microhardness and porosity of Class 2 light-
Fünf-Jahres-Studie von James C. Setcos, cured composite restorations cured with a
Manchester transparent cone attached to the light- curing
Phillip J 12 (1995) 93-95 wand
Oper Dent 18 (1993) 103-109
Shinkai K, Suzuki S, Katoh Y
Effect of an adhesive bonding system on wear Wassel RW, McCabe JF, Walls AWG
resistance of resin composite restorations Wear rates of regular and tempered composites
Quintessence Int 28 (1997) 687-693 J Dent 25 (1997) 49-52

Shinkai K, Suzuki S, Leinfelder K, Katoh Y Wassel RW, McCabe JF, Walls AWG
How heat treatment and thermal cycling affect A two-body friction wear test
wear of composite resin inlays J Dent Res 73 (1994) 1546-1553
J Am Dent Assoc 125 (1994) 1467-1472
Wassel RW, McCabe JF, Walls AWG
Sjörgen G, Hdlund SO, Jonsson C Subsurface deformation associated with
A 3-year follow-up study of preformed beta- hardness measurements of composites
quartz glass-ceramic insert restorations Dent Mater 8 (1992) 218-223
Quintessence Int 31 (2000) 25-31
Wassell RW, McCabe JF, Walls AW
Staehle HJ, Ackermann J Wear characteristics in a two-body wear test
Experimentelle Untersuchungen über die Dent Mater 10 (1994) 269-274
Dichtigkeit von okklusalen Kompositfullungen im
Vergleich zu okklusalen Metallinlays Watts DC, Cash AJ
ZWR 100 (1991) 648-653 Analysis of optical transmission by 400-500 nm
visible ligth into aesthetic dental biomaterials
Steinmetz MJ, Pruhs RJ, Brooks JC, Dhuru VB, Post J Dent 22 (1994) 112-117
AC
Rechargeability of fluoride releasing pit and Willems G, Lambrechts P, Braem M, Celis JP,
fissure sealants and restorative composites Vanherle G
Am J Dent 10 (1997) 36-40 A classification of dental composites according
to their morphological and mechanical
Suliman AA, Boyer DB, Lakes RS characteristics
Cups movement in premolars resulting from Dent Mater 8 (1992) 310-319
composite polymerization shrinkage
Dent Mater 9 (1993) 6-10 Willems G, Lambrechts P, Braem MJA, Vuylsteke-
Wauters M, Vanherle G
Suliman AA, Boyer DB, Lakes RS The surface roughness of enamel-to enamel
Interferometric measurements of cusp areas compared with the intrinsic roughness of
deformation of teeth restored with composites dental composites
J Dent Res 72 (1993) 1532-1536 J Dent Res 70 (1991) 1299-1305

Tani Y, Goto H, Ida K Xu X, Burgess Jo, Al-Owyyed, Weathersby

Wear of posterior composite resins Artificial caries with fluoride-releasing and non-
Dent Mater J 6 (1987) 165-174 fluoride-releasing restorative materials
 ®
Scientific Documentation Heliomolar Family Page 18 of 18

J Dent Res 79(2000) 284 Frei modellierte Brücken mit Heliomolar - Ein
Fallbericht
Zeppenfeld W Phillip J 12 (1995) 105-107

Publications on Heliomolar HB
Dunn JR, Munoz CA, Bernal G, Torres J, Wilson A
Clinical evalutation of Heliomolar HB for Heintze SD, Cavalleri A, Vogel K, Sele J
posterior restorations Microleakage of composite class II restorations
J Dent Res 80 (2001) 91 in vitro
J Dent Res 80 (2001) 589
Lowe E
Heavy duty tips and tricks for using Heliomolar Jackson RD
HB Replacing failed amalgam fillings using
Dental Town Magazine 0 (2001) 14-15 Heliomolar HB direct adhesive resin
Dental Products Report 3 (2001) 70
Neme AL, Pink FE, Aksu MN, Maxson BB, Kashani
N
In-vitro microleakage in class II packable resin
composite restorations
J Dent Res 80 (2001) 105

This documentation contains an overview of internal and external scientific data (information). The
documentation and the corresponding information have been prepared exclusively for in-house use
and for the information of external partners of Ivoclar Vivadent. They are not intended for any other
purpose. Although we assume that the information complies with the latest standard of technology, we
did not check all of them and may thus not assume any responsibility for their accuracy, truthfulness,
or reliability. Liability cannot be assumed for the use of this information, even if we obtain contrary
information. The information is used at the sole risk of the reader. Information is made available 'as
received' without explicit or implied warranty regarding suitability (without reservation) for any specific
purpose.

The information is made available free of charge. Ivoclar and its partners cannot be held accountable
for any direct, indirect, immediate, or specific damage (including but not exclusively damage resulting
from lost information, loss of use, or costs resulting from gathering comparable information), or for
penal damages, which result from the use or failure to use this information, even if we or our
representatives were informed about the possibility of such damage.

Ivoclar Vivadent AG
Research & Development
Scientific Service
Bendererstrasse 2
FL – 9494 Schaan
Liechtenstein

Contents: Dr Urs Lendenmann

Issued: November 2001