Literature DB >> 24304339

Polymerization shrinkage and depth of cure of bulk fill flowable composite resins.

D Garcia, P Yaman, J Dennison, Gf Neiva.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate polymerization shrinkage and depth of cure of two bulk fill flowable composites, one nanohybrid composite modified to a flowable consistency, and one standard flowable composite, comparing the scraping method to the Knoop hardness test.
METHODS: Two bulk fill flowable composites, SureFil SDR flow (SSF) (Dentsply) and Venus Bulk Fill (VBF) (Heraeus Kulzer), one standard flowable, Filtek Supreme Ultra Flowable (FSUF) (3M/ESPE) (control), and one regular bulk composite that can be made flowable, SonicFill (SF) (Kerr), were used in this study. For polymerization shrinkage (PS), ten 2-mm samples were made for each composite and cured for 20 seconds and shrinkage was measured with a Kaman linometer. For hardness, ten specimens of each composite were made in a 10 × 10-mm mold and cured for 20 seconds; the bottom surface was scraped according to ISO 4049 specification, and the remaining thickness was measured with a micrometer. Hardness samples were prepared at 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-mm thick ×14-mm diameter, cured for 20 seconds, and polished. After 24 hours of dry storage, a Knoop indenter was applied at 100 g load for 11 seconds. Three readings were made on the top and bottom of each specimen and averaged for each surface to calculate a Knoop hardness value and a bottom/top hardness ratio. One-way analysis of variance and Tukey tests were used to determine significant differences between thicknesses and between test methods for each material.
RESULTS: PS values were 3.43 ± 0.51%, 3.57 ± 0.63%, 4.4 ± 0.79%, and 1.76 ± 0.53% for FSUF, SSF, VBF, and SF, respectively. VBF showed significantly greater shrinkage (4.4 ± 0.79%), followed by FSUF (3.43 ± 0.51%) and SSF (3.57 ± 0.63%), which were similar, and SF (1.76 ± 0.53%), which had significantly less shrinkage (p<0.05). Values for the scraping method for depth of cure were significantly greater for SSF and VBF (>5.0 mm), followed by SF (3.46 ± 0.16 mm) and FSU (2.98 ± 0.22 mm). Knoop top hardness values (KHN) were: VBF 21.55 ± 2.39, FSUF 44.62 ± 1.93, SSF 29.17 ± 0.76, and SF 72.56 ± 2.4 at 2 mm and were not significantly different at 3-, 4-, and 5-mm thick within each material. Ratios for bottom/top values (depth of cure) for 2, 3, 4, and 5 mm were: VBF 0.80 ± 0.1, 0.78 ± 0.03, 0.67 ± 0.10, and 0.59 ± 0.07, respectively; SSF 0.74 ± 0.08, 0.72 ± 0.08, 0.69 ± 0.18, and 0.62 ± 0.08, respectively; SF 0.82 ± 0.05, 0.68 ± 0.05, 0.47 ± 0.04, and 0.21 ± 0.02, respectively; and FSUF 0.56 ± 0.08 at 2 mm and 0.40 ± 0.08 at 3 mm. The bottom/top ratio was .80 or less at all depths and decreased below 0.70 at 4-mm depth for VBF and SSF, at 3 mm for SF and at 2 mm for FSUF.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24304339     DOI: 10.2341/12-484-L

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oper Dent        ISSN: 0361-7734            Impact factor:   2.440


  31 in total

1.  Influence of increment thickness on light transmission, degree of conversion and micro hardness of bulk fill composites.

Authors:  Sufyan Garoushi; Pekka Vallittu; Akikazu Shinya; Lippo Lassila
Journal:  Odontology       Date:  2015-12-11       Impact factor: 2.634

2.  Marginal adaptation and microleakage of a bulk-fill composite resin photopolymerized with different techniques.

Authors:  Vania Stephanie Sánchez Gamarra; Gilberto Antonio Borges; Luiz Henrique Burnett Júnior; Ana Maria Spohr
Journal:  Odontology       Date:  2017-02-03       Impact factor: 2.634

3.  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

4.  Comparative Evaluation of the Depth of Cure and Degree of Conversion of Two Bulk Fill Flowable Composites.

Authors:  Ca Anand Yokesh; P Hemalatha; M Muthalagu; M Robert Justin
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2017-08-01

5.  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

6.  Depth of cure of bulk fill composites with monowave and polywave curing lights.

Authors:  Timothy S Menees; Chee Paul Lin; Dave D Kojic; John O Burgess; Nathaniel C Lawson
Journal:  Am J Dent       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 1.522

7.  Influence of irradiation time on subsurface degree of conversion and microhardness of high-viscosity bulk-fill resin composites.

Authors:  Z Tarle; T Attin; D Marovic; L Andermatt; M Ristic; T T Tauböck
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2014-08-21       Impact factor: 3.573

8.  Depth of Cure, Hardness, Roughness and Filler Dimension of Bulk-Fill Flowable, Conventional Flowable and High-Strength Universal Injectable Composites: An In Vitro Study.

Authors:  Francesco Saverio Ludovichetti; Patrizia Lucchi; Giulia Zambon; Luca Pezzato; Rachele Bertolini; Nicoletta Zerman; Edoardo Stellini; Sergio Mazzoleni
Journal:  Nanomaterials (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-07       Impact factor: 5.719

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.  Evaluation of marginal sealing quality of restorations with low shrinkage composite resins.

Authors:  Bruno-Mendonça-Lucena de Veras; Renata-Pedrosa Guimarães; Luiz-Carlos Alves; Rafael-José-Ribeiro Padilha; Luana-Osório Fernandes; Carlos-Menezes Aguiar
Journal:  J Clin Exp Dent       Date:  2020-12-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.