Alberto A Herrero1, Peter Yaman, Joseph B Dennison. 1. University of Michigan School of Dentistry, Department of Biologic and Materials Science, Division of Prosthodontics, Ann Arbor 48109-1078, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This investigation evaluated polymerization shrinkage and depth of cure of five packable composites. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Five materials were used for the investigation: Alert, Surefil, Solitaire, P60, and Prodigy Condensable. Groups of 10 specimens of each material were made measuring either 2 or 5 mm in thickness, mounted in a testing jig, and polymerized using a dental curing light. Linear shrinkage was recorded and converted to a volumetric value. To evaluate depth of cure, ten specimens of each material were fabricated in both 2- and 5-mm thicknesses, and a Knoop hardness number was recorded on the top and bottom surfaces 5 minutes after light curing. A one-way analysis of variance statistical test was used to determine if there was a significant difference among materials. A Tukey multiple comparison test was then used to determine where significant differences existed. RESULTS: The volumetric shrinkage for the 2-mm-thick specimens from highest shrinkage to lowest were: Solitaire (3.3%), Prodigy Condensable (1.8%), Surefil (1.4%), P60 (1.2%), and Alert (0.2%). The 5-mm-thick specimens were ranked as follows: Solitaire (2.1%), Prodigy Condensable (1.0%), P60 (0.9%), Surefil (0.8%), and Alert (0.3%). Hardness for the bottom surface of the 2-mm-thick specimens showed that P60 (48.5) and Alert (42.6) had the highest values. Solitaire (11.2) had a significantly lower value. Hardness for the bottom surface at 5-mm thickness showed Alert (16.5) and P60 (16.3) with higher values than Surefil (8.9). CONCLUSION: Solitaire had the most shrinkage and Alert the least at both 2- and 5-mm depths. Depth of cure was severely compromised for all materials at 5 mm.
OBJECTIVE: This investigation evaluated polymerization shrinkage and depth of cure of five packable composites. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Five materials were used for the investigation: Alert, Surefil, Solitaire, P60, and Prodigy Condensable. Groups of 10 specimens of each material were made measuring either 2 or 5 mm in thickness, mounted in a testing jig, and polymerized using a dental curing light. Linear shrinkage was recorded and converted to a volumetric value. To evaluate depth of cure, ten specimens of each material were fabricated in both 2- and 5-mm thicknesses, and a Knoop hardness number was recorded on the top and bottom surfaces 5 minutes after light curing. A one-way analysis of variance statistical test was used to determine if there was a significant difference among materials. A Tukey multiple comparison test was then used to determine where significant differences existed. RESULTS: The volumetric shrinkage for the 2-mm-thick specimens from highest shrinkage to lowest were: Solitaire (3.3%), Prodigy Condensable (1.8%), Surefil (1.4%), P60 (1.2%), and Alert (0.2%). The 5-mm-thick specimens were ranked as follows: Solitaire (2.1%), Prodigy Condensable (1.0%), P60 (0.9%), Surefil (0.8%), and Alert (0.3%). Hardness for the bottom surface of the 2-mm-thick specimens showed that P60 (48.5) and Alert (42.6) had the highest values. Solitaire (11.2) had a significantly lower value. Hardness for the bottom surface at 5-mm thickness showed Alert (16.5) and P60 (16.3) with higher values than Surefil (8.9). CONCLUSION: Solitaire had the most shrinkage and Alert the least at both 2- and 5-mm depths. Depth of cure was severely compromised for all materials at 5 mm.