OBJECTIVE: To assess whether composite polymer resin delivered in compules include pores and the possible effect on the amount of porosity in dental restorations. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Original compules containing unpolymerised composite polymer resin (CPR) were scanned in a micro-CT. Four products were examined, which comprised universal composites (Herculite XRV Ultra, Ceram.X Universal, Tetric Evo Ceram) and a flowable bulk-fill composite (SDR) (n = 10 per group). The pore size distribution and amount of porosity (vol.%) were estimated for the unpolymerized and polymerized material used to restore a standardised cavity in a typodont tooth. Manufacturers' instructions were followed regarding material handling, and polymerisation by use of a calibrated light-curing unit. The pore characteristics and their size distribution, and the amount of porosity in the dental restoration were contrasted with the values measured in the compule. Non-parametric tests were used to analyse differences between the four products. RESULTS: All the composite polymer resin compules contained unpolymerised material that included pores. The universal composite compules included pores predominantly in the sub-100 µm sizes. In contrast, the flowable bulk-fill compules included a few pores with a diameter >100 µm, which were assumed to be air-bubbles. The unpolymerised material within the compule included consistently more pores compared to the extruded portion from the compule tip, and in the final restoration (p < .001). The amount of porosity in the restorations differed amongst the tested materials, with the flowable bulk-fill composite showing the lowest amount of porosity (p < .01).
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether composite polymer resin delivered in compules include pores and the possible effect on the amount of porosity in dental restorations. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Original compules containing unpolymerised composite polymer resin (CPR) were scanned in a micro-CT. Four products were examined, which comprised universal composites (Herculite XRV Ultra, Ceram.X Universal, Tetric Evo Ceram) and a flowable bulk-fill composite (SDR) (n = 10 per group). The pore size distribution and amount of porosity (vol.%) were estimated for the unpolymerized and polymerized material used to restore a standardised cavity in a typodont tooth. Manufacturers' instructions were followed regarding material handling, and polymerisation by use of a calibrated light-curing unit. The pore characteristics and their size distribution, and the amount of porosity in the dental restoration were contrasted with the values measured in the compule. Non-parametric tests were used to analyse differences between the four products. RESULTS: All the composite polymer resin compules contained unpolymerised material that included pores. The universal composite compules included pores predominantly in the sub-100 µm sizes. In contrast, the flowable bulk-fill compules included a few pores with a diameter >100 µm, which were assumed to be air-bubbles. The unpolymerised material within the compule included consistently more pores compared to the extruded portion from the compule tip, and in the final restoration (p < .001). The amount of porosity in the restorations differed amongst the tested materials, with the flowable bulk-fill composite showing the lowest amount of porosity (p < .01).
Authors: D Maret; N Telmon; O A Peters; B Lepage; J Treil; J M Inglèse; A Peyre; J L Kahn; M Sixou Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 2.419
Authors: R Hirata; R R Pacheco; E Caceres; M N Janal; M F Romero; M Giannini; P G Coelho; F A Rueggeberg Journal: Oper Dent Date: 2018-02-02 Impact factor: 2.440