Evaluation of the polymerization shrinkage of experimental flowable composite resins through optical coherence tomography

Author(s):  
Vanda S. M. Carneiro ◽  
Alex F. Souza ◽  
Marlus R. R. Cajazeira ◽  
Cláudia C. B. O. Mota ◽  
Marleny E. M. M. Gerbi ◽  
...  
2014 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 441-448 ◽  
Author(s):  
D Garcia ◽  
P Yaman ◽  
J Dennison ◽  
GF Neiva

SUMMARY 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.


2007 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 80-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yonca Korkmaz ◽  
Nuray Attar

Abstract Aim The disadvantages of light cured composite resin materials with respect to microleakage are predominantly a result of polymerization shrinkage upon curing. It has been shown curing methods play a significant role in polymerization shrinkage of light-cured composite resins. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of light-emitting diode (LED) light curing units (LCUs) compared with a halogen LCU on microleakage of three different flowable composites using self-etch adhesives. Methods and Materials A total of 63 extracted human premolars were prepared with standardized Class V cavity preparations on the buccal and lingual surfaces of each tooth. The occusal margin of the cavities was located on the enamel and the gingival margin was on dentin. Teeth were randomly assigned to three groups of 21 teeth each as follows: Group 1: Adper Prompt L-Pop + Filtek Flow (3M ESPE); Group 2: AdheSE + Tetric Flow (Ivoclar, Vivadent); and Group 3: Clearfil Protect Bond + Clearfil Protect Liner F (Kuraray Medical Inc.). All the groups were subdivided into three groups according to the curing lights used (n=7). Two LED LCUs, Elipar FreeLight and Elipar FreeLight 2 (3M ESPE), and one halogen-based LCU, Hilux Expert (Benlioglu), were used. All teeth were then immersed in 0.5% basic fuchsin dye solution for 24 hours after thermocycling (500 cycles; between 5°C to 55°C). The teeth then were longitudinally sectioned and observed under a stereomicroscope (40X magnification) by two examiners. The degree of dye penetration was recorded separately for enamel and dentin. Data were analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests with the Bonferroni correction. Results No statistically significant differences in microleakage were observed between groups either on enamel or dentin (p>0.05). Conclusion With the limitation of this in vitro study, the differences in microleakage between LCUs used were not statistically significantly different. Elipar Free Light 2 reduces curing time which can be considered as an advantage. Citation Attar N, Korkmaz Y. Effect of Two Light-emitting Diode (LED) and One Halogen Curing Light on the Microleakage of Class V Flowable Composite Restorations. J Contemp Dent Pract 2007 February;(8)2:080-088.


2007 ◽  
Vol 177 (4S) ◽  
pp. 358-359 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher S. Lee ◽  
Alek Mishail ◽  
Jason M. Kim ◽  
Alexander Kirshenbaum ◽  
Howard L. Adler ◽  
...  

2006 ◽  
Vol 175 (4S) ◽  
pp. 395-395
Author(s):  
Nancy J. Tresser ◽  
Elena V. Zagaynova ◽  
Olga S. Streltsova ◽  
Natalia D. Gladkova ◽  
Vladislav A. Kamensky ◽  
...  

2004 ◽  
Vol 171 (4S) ◽  
pp. 68-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Markus D. Sachs ◽  
Dmitry Daniltchenko ◽  
Eva Lankenau ◽  
Frank Koenig ◽  
Gerion Huettmann ◽  
...  

1999 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 85-89 ◽  
Author(s):  
L L Otis ◽  
B W Colston ◽  
M J Everett ◽  
H Nathel

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document