Literature DB >> 22575738

Effect of layering methods, composite type, and flowable liner on the polymerization shrinkage stress of light cured composites.

Youngchul Kwon1, Jack Ferracane, In-Bog Lee.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of layering methods, flowable composite liner and use of low shrinkage silorane-based composite on the polymerization shrinkage stress of light cured composites.
METHODS: Aluminum blocks were used to prepare MOD cavities and divided into four groups. A universal hybrid methacrylate-based composite (Z250), a flowable composite (Z350 flowable), and a silorane-based composite (P90) were used to fill the cavities. Cavities were restored using four different filling protocols. Group 1 was filled in bulk with Z250, group 2 was restored by an increment technique with the same composite, group 3 by an increment technique with Z250 and a Z350 flowable lining, and group 4 was restored by an increment technique with P90. The axial shrinkage strain and flexural modulus of the three composites were determined, and cuspal deflection of each group was measured with LVDT probes and compared among groups using ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test (α=0.05).
RESULTS: The axial shrinkage strains of P90, Z250, and Z350 flowable were 1.09 (0.11), 2.29 (0.06), and 4.12 (0.08)%, respectively. The flexural modulus of P90 was 10.1 (0.9), Z250 was 13.6 (2.0), and that of Z350 flowable was 7.6 (0.9) GPa. The cuspal deflections at 33 min in groups 1-4 were 18.2 (1.54), 14.5 (0.47), 16.2 (1.10), and 6.6 (0.44) μm, respectively. The incremental filling technique yielded significantly lower cuspal deflection than the bulk filling technique. Flowable composite lining under universal composite (Z250) layering showed higher cuspal deflection than that without flowable composite lining. Silorane-based (P90) composite exhibited lower cuspal deflection than metacrylate based (Z250) composite. SIGNIFICANCE: Cuspal deflection resulting from polymerization shrinkage stress may be reduced by an incremental filling technique and by the use of low shrinking composite to obtain optimal clinical outcomes. Flowable composite lining under conventional composite layering did not reduce polymerization shrinkage stress as assessed by cuspal deflection.
Copyright © 2012 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22575738     DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2012.04.028

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dent Mater        ISSN: 0109-5641            Impact factor:   5.304


  30 in total

1.  Impact of thio-urethane additive and filler type on light-transmission and depth of polymerization of dental composites.

Authors:  André Luis Faria-E-Silva; Carmem Silvia Pfeifer
Journal:  Dent Mater       Date:  2017-08-12       Impact factor: 5.304

2.  Light transmittance and micro-mechanical properties of bulk fill vs. conventional resin based composites.

Authors:  Stefan Bucuta; Nicoleta Ilie
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2014-01-11       Impact factor: 3.573

Review 3.  Polymerization shrinkage assessment of dental resin composites: a literature review.

Authors:  Dalia Kaisarly; Moataz El Gezawi
Journal:  Odontology       Date:  2016-08-19       Impact factor: 2.634

4.  Three-year clinical evaluation of class II posterior composite restorations placed with different techniques and flowable composite linings in endodontically treated teeth.

Authors:  Emel Karaman; Busra Keskin; Ugur Inan
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2016-08-19       Impact factor: 3.573

5.  Effect of Different Composite Restorations on the Cuspal Deflection of Premolars Restored with Different Insertion Techniques- An In vitro Study.

Authors:  Sakshi Singhal; Anuraag Gurtu; Anurag Singhal; Rashmi Bansal; Sumit Mohan
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2017-08-01

6.  Clinical and histological reaction of periodontal tissues to subgingival resin composite restorations.

Authors:  Carlo Bertoldi; Emanuela Monari; Pierpaolo Cortellini; Luigi Generali; Andrea Lucchi; Sergio Spinato; Davide Zaffe
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2019-07-08       Impact factor: 3.573

7.  Effect of composite type and placement technique on cuspal strain.

Authors:  Vilhelm G Ólafsson; André V Ritter; Edward J Swift; Lee W Boushell; Ching-Chang Ko; Gabrielle R Jackson; Sumitha N Ahmed; Terence E Donovan
Journal:  J Esthet Restor Dent       Date:  2017-10-16       Impact factor: 2.843

Review 8.  Use of flowable resin composite as an intermediate layer in class II restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Cleber Paradzinski Cavalheiro; Helena Scherer; José Carlos Pettorossi Imparato; Fabrício Mezzomo Collares; Tathiane Larissa Lenzi
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2021-08-27       Impact factor: 3.606

9.  Could sonic delivery of bulk-fill resins improve the bond strength and cure depth in extended size class I cavities?

Authors:  Karla-Janilee-de Souza Penha; Ana-Ferreira Souza; Marina-Jansen Dos Santos; Lauber-José Dos Santos-Almeida Júnior; Rudys-Rodolfo-De Jesus Tavarez; Leily-Macedo Firoozmand
Journal:  J Clin Exp Dent       Date:  2020-12-01

10.  Posterior composite restoration update: focus on factors influencing form and function.

Authors:  Brenda S Bohaty; Qiang Ye; Anil Misra; Fabio Sene; Paulette Spencer
Journal:  Clin Cosmet Investig Dent       Date:  2013-05-15
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.