The nanohybrid resins generally presented inferior properties compared with the nanofilled composite and either similar or slightly better properties compared to the microhybrid material. Under clinical conditions, nanohybrid resins may not perform similarly to nanofilled materials.
Differences between various composites
0.01 to 0.1 µm (agglomerated)
1- 0.1- to 2-µm glass
2- 40-nm silica
1- 0.1- to 2-µm glass or resin micro particles
2- ≤100-nm nanoparticles
· Sub gingival lesions
· Smooth surfaces
· Anterior aesthetic
w.r.t (1) Moderate-stress areas requiring optimal polishability (Classes III, IV)
Wrt (1) Moderate-stress areas requiring optimal Polishability
w.r.t (2) (Classes III, IV)
· Simulates actual enamel surface
· Highest aesthetic level
· Better wear properties than any other
· High luster and hold their polish over time
· Stain and plaque resistant
· Highest reflective and refractive indices hence more realistic translucency
· Simulate the dentin of natural tooth structure.
· Higher strength can be used as substructure under microfills enamel layer.
· Most Opaque of the 3 composite types, also great for masking out unwanted color and achieving extreme color changes.
· exhibit higher polishability
· better surface smoothness
· lifelike opacious translucency
· Less strength than micro and nanohybrid
· Dec. water sorption
· Less polishable
· More difficult to marginate, and will wear faster than microfill resins.
· donot hold their polish long as microfills but better than microhybrids
· More susceptible to plaque and staining over time.
· Less biological compatible with gingival tissues