BACKGROUND: Proximal contact tightness of class II resin composite restorations is influenced by a myriad of factors. Previous studies investigated the role of matrix band type and thickness, consistency of resin composite, and technique of placement. However, the effect of volumetric shrinkage of resin and intensity of curing light has yet to be determined. Thus, the aim of this study was to identify the influence of these factors on the proximal contact tightness when restoring class II cavity preparations in vitro. METHODS: Sixty artificial molars were restored with either a low-shrinkage (Filtek Silorane, 3M ESPE) or a conventional (Z100, 3M ESPE) composite and polymerized with low-intensity (Smartlite IQ2, Dentsply) or high-intensity light curing units (Demi(TM), Kerr). Proximal contact tightness was measured using the Tooth Pressure Meter. Data were statistically analyzed using one-way analysis of variance and Tukey post hoc test. RESULTS: Use of low-shrinkage composite (Filtek Silorane) resulted in significantly tighter proximal contacts compared to the use of conventional composite (Z100) when cured with the same polymerization unit (p<0.001). Moreover, the low-intensity curing unit (IQ2) resulted in significantly tighter contacts than the high-intensity unit when material is constant (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Low-shrinkage resin composite and low curing light intensity is associated with tighter proximal contact values.
BACKGROUND: Proximal contact tightness of class II resin composite restorations is influenced by a myriad of factors. Previous studies investigated the role of matrix band type and thickness, consistency of resin composite, and technique of placement. However, the effect of volumetric shrinkage of resin and intensity of curing light has yet to be determined. Thus, the aim of this study was to identify the influence of these factors on the proximal contact tightness when restoring class II cavity preparations in vitro. METHODS: Sixty artificial molars were restored with either a low-shrinkage (Filtek Silorane, 3M ESPE) or a conventional (Z100, 3M ESPE) composite and polymerized with low-intensity (Smartlite IQ2, Dentsply) or high-intensity light curing units (Demi(TM), Kerr). Proximal contact tightness was measured using the Tooth Pressure Meter. Data were statistically analyzed using one-way analysis of variance and Tukey post hoc test. RESULTS: Use of low-shrinkage composite (Filtek Silorane) resulted in significantly tighter proximal contacts compared to the use of conventional composite (Z100) when cured with the same polymerization unit (p<0.001). Moreover, the low-intensity curing unit (IQ2) resulted in significantly tighter contacts than the high-intensity unit when material is constant (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Low-shrinkage resin composite and low curing light intensity is associated with tighter proximal contact values.