Strain development in bulk-filled cavities of different depths characterized using a non-destructive acoustic emission approach

Ende, Annelies Van; Lise, Diogo Pedrollo; Munck, Jan De; Vanhulst, Johan; Wevers, Martine; Meerbeek, Bart Van

doi:10.1016/j.dental.2016.12.012

Cited by 19 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The debonding could be attributed to weak bonding to dentin and/or stronger bonding to enamel on the opposite cavity wall [33,44]. In our study, no variation in the thickness of the enamel margin was investigated or detected; thus, the shrinkage pattern can be attributed to the greater volume of composite than in the incremental application [29,57,58]. Others displayed shrinkage vectors that mainly indicated axial movement depending on the bonding condition, in which the unbonded composite moved upward toward the curing light, whereas the bonded composite exhibited shrinkage from the free surface downward toward the cavity floor, as seen in the second increment of our incremental groups [48,65,67].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 56%

“…Thus, a nondestructive evaluation of gaps using micro-CT scans would be advantageous [55]. Debonding of SDR from the cavity floor and/or margins was more pronounced when SDR was applied in bulk rather than when applied incrementally despite its low shrinkage stresses and flexibility [29,[56][57][58]. Debonding might be due to the inability of the developing interfacial bonds to completely counteract the developed shrinkage stresses, resulting in isolated areas of interfacial debonding at different locations [31].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The flowable bulk-fill composite exhibited smaller shrinkage vectors when applied incrementally. In large cavities, bulk filling reaches lower bond strength values than incremental application, and the cavity size is a determining factor affecting the bond strength [58,74].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

et al. 2020

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: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 56%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In vitro, the research strongly substantiates an increased depth of cure of bulk-fill resin composites over conventional composites, mainly attributed to their increased translucency [10]. Nevertheless, when comparing these materials, conflicting results regarding the development of contraction forces and shrinkage stress kinetics can be pointed out, with no clear advantage for all the bulk-fill ones [2,11,12]. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis showed that a similar clinical performance can be expected for bulk-fill and conventional resin composites in direct posterior restorations, encouraging the use of the former, as they reduce chair time and are less technically demanding [13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Polymerization Shrinkage Evaluation of Restorative Resin-Based Composites Using Fiber Bragg Grating Sensors

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to compare the linear polymerization shrinkage of different restorative resin-based composites (RBCs) using fiber Bragg grating (FBG) sensors. Five RBCs were evaluated: Zirconfill® (ZFL); Aura Bulk-Fill (ABF); Tetric® N-Ceram Bulk-Fill (TBF); FiltekTM Bulk-Fill (FBF); and Admira Fusion-Ormocer® (ADF). Ten samples per resin were produced in standardized custom-made half-gutter silicone molds. Two optical FBG sensors were used to assess temperature and polymerization shrinkage. Light curing was performed for 40 s and polymerization shrinkage was evaluated at 5, 10, 40, 60, 150, and 300 s. Statistical analysis was accomplished for normal distribution (Shapiro-Wilk, p > 0.05). Two-way repeated measures ANOVA with Greenhouse-Geisser correction followed by Bonferroni′s post-hoc test was used to analyze the linear shrinkage data (p < 0.05). ZFL showed the highest linear shrinkage and ADF the lowest. Shrinkage increased for all RBCs until 300 s, where significant differences were found between ADF and all other resins (p < 0.05). Among bulk-fill RBCs, TBF showed the lowest shrinkage value, but not statistically different from FBF. The ADF presented lower linear shrinkage than all other RBCs, and restorative bulk-fill composites exhibited an intermediate behavior.

show abstract

“…22,24,25,27,28 Bulk-fill RBC contains different types of filler and have different filler loading (Table 1). While physical properties, such as the polymerization shrinkage and the depth of cure of bulk-fill RBCs, have been extensively studied, [29][30][31][32][33] the effect of tooth brushing these bulk-fill…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of tooth brushing on gloss retention and surface roughness of five bulk‐fill resin composites

O’Neill

Kreplak

Rueggeberg

et al. 2017

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Strain development in bulk-filled cavities of different depths characterized using a non-destructive acoustic emission approach

Cited by 19 publications

References 50 publications

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

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

Polymerization Shrinkage Evaluation of Restorative Resin-Based Composites Using Fiber Bragg Grating Sensors

Effect of tooth brushing on gloss retention and surface roughness of five bulk‐fill resin composites

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About