Shrinkage vectors of a flowable composite in artificial cavity models with different boundary conditions: Ceramic and Teflon

Kaisarly, Dalia; Gezawi, Moataz El; Xu, Xin; Rösch, Peter; Kunzelmann, Karl‐Heinz

doi:10.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.10.004

Cited by 16 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The teeth were randomly divided into three groups according to the application method of the composite (n = 8). Cylindrical class I cavities (diameter = 6 mm; depth = 4 mm) were prepared in all samples, and the occlusal cusps of the teeth were flattened to ensure standardized perpendicular light-curing as close to the cavity as possible [30][31][32][33]. All restorations were bonded with the total-etch approach using OptiBond FL (Kerr, Scafati, Italy) and light-cured for 20 s at 1100 mW/cm 2 (Bluephase Style, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein).…”

Section: Sample Preparationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the third group, "EvoFlow-incremental," the flowable composite Tetric EvoFlow (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) was applied in two 2-mm-thick increments. Tetric EvoFlow was chosen as a representative material for low-viscosity composites and as a reference to earlier shrinkage vector evaluations [30][31][32][33].…”

Section: Sample Preparationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, the shrinkage vectors were calculated from the change in sphere position due to polymerization shrinkage in both scans. The methodology was previously described in detail [27,31,33]. The evaluation of the bulk application and "increment1" of the incremental application included scans 1 and 2.…”

Section: Data Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The three-dimensional visualization of the shrinkage vector fields was performed using VTK (www.vtk.org), and each vector was represented graphically in the form of a glyph or arrow showing the direction of shrinkage. Thus, the shrinkage vector field was scaled by a factor of 5 to improve the visibility of the glyphs, and the shrinkage vector fields were analyzed qualitatively for shrinkage patterns [30][31][32][33].…”

Section: Visualization Of the Shrinkage Vectorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The polymerization shrinkage and shrinkage stress can be evaluated in vitro with a simple sample geometry [2,25,26]. However, the real effects of polymerization shrinkage of a composite restoration can be seen only when applied in a cavity with its associated boundary conditions [27][28][29][30][31][32]. Earlier studies investigated shrinkage vectors of a flowable composite (Tetric EvoFlow, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtensetin) applied with a 3-mm thickness; these studies were conducted before bulk-fill composites were widely available [30][31][32][33].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Shrinkage vectors in flowable bulk-fill and conventional composites: bulk versus incremental application

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Sufficient depth of cure allows bulk-fill composites to be placed with a 4-mm thickness. This study investigated bulk versus incremental application methods by visualizing shrinkage vectors in flowable bulk-fill and conventional composites. Materials and methods Cylindrical cavities (diameter = 6 mm, depth = 4 mm) were prepared in 24 teeth and then etched and bonded with OptiBond FL (Kerr, Italy). The composites were mixed with 2 wt% radiolucent glass beads. In one group, smart dentin replacement (SDR, Dentsply) was applied in bulk "SDR-bulk" (n = 8). In two groups, SDR and Tetric EvoFlow (Ivoclar Vivadent) were applied in two 2-mm-thick increments: "SDR-incremental" and "EvoFlow-incremental." Each material application was scanned with a micro-CT before and after light-curing (40 s, 1100 mW/cm 2), and the shrinkage vectors were computed via image segmentation. Thereafter, linear polymerization shrinkage, shrinkage stress and gelation time were measured (n = 10). Results The greatest shrinkage vectors were found in "SDR-bulk" and "SDR-increment2," and the smallest were found in "SDR-increment1-covered" and "EvoFlow-increment1-covered." Shrinkage away from and toward the cavity floor was greatest in "SDR-bulk" and "EvoFlow-increment2," respectively. The mean values of the shrinkage vectors were significantly different between groups (one-way ANOVA, Tamhane's T2 test, p < 0.05). The linear polymerization shrinkage and shrinkage stress were greatest in Tetric EvoFlow, and the gelation time was greatest in "SDR-bulk." Conclusions The bulk application method had greater values of shrinkage vectors and a higher debonding tendency at the cavity floor. Clinical relevance Incremental application remains the gold standard of composite insertion.

show abstract

Section: Sample Preparationmentioning

confidence: 99%