2008
DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2007.11.012
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A mathematical analysis of shrinkage stress development in dental composite restorations during resin polymerization

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0
8

Year Published

2010
2010
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 41 publications
(29 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
11
0
8
Order By: Relevance
“…However, it is important to remember that shrinkage stress, that is not a material property, is a consequence of multiple factors and specific methods have to be used for evaluation. Such methods are described in the literature: ring slitting method [75, 76], photoelastic analysis [7779], finite element analysis [42, 8083], mathematical models [84], crack propagation [85], and force transducers [2, 40, 41, 46, 86, 87]. …”
Section: Polymerization Shrinkage: Methods For Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, it is important to remember that shrinkage stress, that is not a material property, is a consequence of multiple factors and specific methods have to be used for evaluation. Such methods are described in the literature: ring slitting method [75, 76], photoelastic analysis [7779], finite element analysis [42, 8083], mathematical models [84], crack propagation [85], and force transducers [2, 40, 41, 46, 86, 87]. …”
Section: Polymerization Shrinkage: Methods For Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The morphology, shrinkage and physical properties of dental composite resins have been investigated by many researchers (Xia et al 2003;Chen et al 2006;Li et al 2008). Culbertson et al (Gao et al 2001) evaluated the systems of POSS incorporated with neat resins (without filler) and found that miscibility between the POSS component and the matrix was an important factor in improving the performances of composite resin.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…While these predictions are more reasonable, they are still longer than the reported average longevity of composite-resin restorations of 5.7 years [38]. In addition to the limitations of the models themselves, the difference between predictions and clinical observations could be attributed to other challenges not considered in this study, namely, shrinkage stress [16,39,40], varying temperatures and pH values, reactive biochemical species, and biofilms, which can all compromise the tooth-composite interface [41,42]. It should be noted that in the case of real restorations, both the enamel and dentin are bonded to the composite resin.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 81%