<Table> <Tr> <Td> </Td> <Td> This article needs additional citations for verification . Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources . Unsourced material may be challenged and removed . (March 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) </Td> </Tr> </Table> <Tr> <Td> </Td> <Td> This article needs additional citations for verification . Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources . Unsourced material may be challenged and removed . (March 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) </Td> </Tr> <P> In dentistry, the configuration factor was first introduced by Davidson CL, 1986, and later quantitavly extended Feilzer et al. in 1987 and refers to the number of bonded surfaces to the number of un-bonded surfaces in a dental restoration . For example, for a class I preparation there would be 5 bonded surfaces and only 1 un-bonded surface; the net result would be a c - factor of 5 . With an increasing C factor the developing curing contraction stresses of bonded restorations (resin composites) increases too (Feilzer et al. 1987). The developing curing contraction in a bonded restoration generate stress on the bonded interface that are in competition with the developing bond strength of the setting restorative to the cavity surfaces, which may result in (partial) debonding, marginal leakage and post-operative pain (Davidson et al. 1984). </P> <P> Internal stress can be reduced in a restoration subject to potentially reduce high disruptive contraction forces by using: </P>

C-factor (configuration factor) is defined as the ratio of