Evaluation of Polymerization shrinkage of 2 types of posterior composite resins

Rao, Lakshmi Nidhi; Hegde, Mithra N.; Shetty, Aditya S.

doi:10.1055/s-0040-1708691

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…2 Interfacial surface sealing and the absence of microleakage edges are important factors that can affect the clinical outcome of restorations. 3 Peutzfeldt Anne argues that microleakage can be caused by polymerization shrinkage. 4 Shrinkage in the * Corresponding author, e-mail: widyapramana.dwi@umy.ac.id composite resin is caused by densification during polymerization.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Difference of Microleakage Between One-Bulkfill Resin Composite and Conventional Resin Composite

Atmaja

2022

IDJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Resin composites are the most commonly used restorative materials and are constantly evolving due to their shortcomings which can affect the restoration results in polymerization shrinkage, leading to the formation of microleakage. Although incremental techniques have been found, this technique has drawbacks regarding the time required and the possibility of contamination. The invention of bulk fill resin composite can solve this problem. Manufacturers of One-Bulkfill (3M ESPE) claim that this material has less polymerization shrinkage than conventional resin composites, which is expected to have less chance of microleakage. This study aims to determine the difference in microleakage between one-bulkfill resin composites and conventional resin composites. 20 extracted premolars without caries and anomalies were utilized as research samples. These teeth were then prepared to form a class 1 cavity, then divided into two groups, namely; (1) One-Bulkfill (3M ESPE) and (2) Z350 XT (3M ESPE). These two samples were immersed in 1% Methylene Blue solution and observed using a Camera with a Macro Lens. Data were analyzed using an independent sample t-test. The results demonstrated a significant difference in microleakage between the two groups (p = 0.014, p0.05). The mean value of microleakage in One-Bukfill composite resin restorations was 0.022, while Z350 XT composite resin restorations had 0.038. It can be concluded that the One-Bulkfill composite resin restoration had a smaller microleakage value than the conventional composite resin restoration (Z350 XT).

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Difference of Microleakage Between One-Bulkfill Resin Composite and Conventional Resin Composite

Atmaja

2022

IDJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Wear of Bulk-fill Composite Resins After Thermo-mechanical Loading

Alsahafi,

Walter,

Nunes

et al. 2023

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY Statement of Problem Wear of conventional composite resin presented many challenges when restoring posterior teeth and resulted in clinical complications. Bulk-fill composite resins have been proposed as a more suitable and wear-resistant alternative. Objective To evaluate and compare the volumetric wear (mm3) of bulk-fill composite resins to a conventional composite resin and enamel after thermo-mechanical loading. Methods and Materials Five composite resins (n=10) were evaluated: four bulk-fill composite resins (Filtek One Bulk Fill [3M Oral Care], Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill [Ivoclar Vivadent], Tetric PowerFill [Ivoclar Vivadent], SonicFill 3 [Kerr Corp]); and one conventional composite resin (Filtek Supreme Ultra [3M Oral Care]). Enamel from recently extracted human teeth was used as a control. Specimens were subjected to a 2-body volumetric wear evaluation using a chewing simulator (CS-4.8, Mechatronik). Disc-shaped specimens (10 mm in diameter × 3 mm in thickness) received 500,000 load cycles against steatite antagonists while simultaneously thermocycled (5000 cycles, 5–55°C). Volumetric wear (mm3) was measured using the Geomagic Control X software (3D Systems) based on digital scans of the specimens obtained before and after thermo-mechanical loading, with a Trios 3 (3Shape) digital scanner. Scanning electron microscopy analysis of wear facets and composite resin filler shape and size was performed. Volumetric wear was statistically analyzed using the one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post-hoc test (α=0.05). Results All tested composite resins wore at rates significantly higher than enamel (p<0.05). The mean volumetric wear of the composite resins ranged from 1.01 mm3 to 1.48 mm3, while enamel had a mean volumetric wear of 0.25 mm3. Bulk-fill composite resins showed higher wear resistance than the conventional composite resin (p<0.05). Conclusions Bulk-fill composite resins showed higher wear resistance than the conventional composite resin, and both types of composite resin were not as wear-resistant as enamel.

show abstract

Trends and Concerns Regarding using Composites as Posterior Restorations and Techniques Employed to Minimize their Failure

Butt

Amer

Khan

et al. 2021

J Wazir Muhammad Inst Paramed Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

employed to minimize their failure. METHODOLOGY: A cross sectional descriptive was conducted in 150 dentists of Sharif College of Dentistry, SMDC, Lahore from June 2019 to July 2020 after obtaining ethical approval from Sharif Medical Research Centre (SMRC). Data was collected using a pre-validated questionnaire. Data was analyzed using SPSS 23. RESULTS: There was no significant association between years of clinical experience and case selection (p=0.436). The association between reason for selection of composites as posterior restorations and clinical experience of dentists was also non-significant (p=0.105). Similar was the case with concerns regarding using composites and clinical experience (p=0.950). The association between years of clinical experience and techniques to minimize failure of composite restorations was also non-significant (p=0.936). CONCLUSION: Majority of dentists with a clinical experience of less than 5 years as well as more than 5 years selected composites as posterior restorations only for small defects while the least chose them only when centric contacts were not involved. The major concern for dentists with clinical experience less than 5 years as well as more than 5 years was polymerization shrinkage of composites while the least were worried about wearing off of the restoration and difficulty in establishing contact points. In order to tackle these concerns the dentists reported in our study that they mostly used the techniques of incremental curing and moisture control procedures.

show abstract

Evaluation of Polymerization shrinkage of 2 types of posterior composite resins

Cited by 3 publications

References 12 publications

The Difference of Microleakage Between One-Bulkfill Resin Composite and Conventional Resin Composite

The Difference of Microleakage Between One-Bulkfill Resin Composite and Conventional Resin Composite

Wear of Bulk-fill Composite Resins After Thermo-mechanical Loading

Trends and Concerns Regarding using Composites as Posterior Restorations and Techniques Employed to Minimize their Failure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About