Vertical and horizontal polymerization shrinkage in composite restorations

Analysis of microleakage and marginal gap presented by new polymeric systems in class V restorations: An in vitro study

Objective

Evaluating the contraction of polymerization effect of silorane-based composite on dental interface in enamel.

Materials and Methods

Eighty class V cavities were confectioned in forty extracted molar teeth and restored with different combinations of resinous-based and bond system. They were divided into the following groups: (G1) three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive system and methacrylate-based resin, (G2) two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive system and methacrylate-based resin, (G3) Filtek P-90 self-conditioning adhesive system and methacrylate-based resin, (G4) Adper SE Plus self-conditioning adhesive system and methacrylate-based resin, (G5) three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive system and silorane-based resin, (G6) two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive system and silorane-based resin, (G7) Filtek P-90 self-conditioning adhesive system and silorane-based resin, (G8) Adper SE Plus self-conditioning adhesive system and silorane-based resin.

Results

Group 7 showed lower marginal leakage when compared with all other groups (p = 0.001).

Conclusions

The results allows suggesting that silorane-based resinous system is adequate to promote more satisfactory marginal sealing than any other combination, since the system is combined with its own bond system.

Measuring the polymerization stress of self-adhesive resin composite cements by crack propagation

Objectives

To test the polymerization stress of nine self-adhesive resin composite cements (G-CEM, iCEM, Bifix SE, Maxcem Elite, PANAVIA SA, SoloCem, SmartCem 2, SpeedCEM, RelyX Unicem 2) and one glass ionomer cement (control group; Ketac Cem).

Materials and methods

The crack propagation of a feldspar ceramic (n = 130) was determined by measuring crack lengths that originated from Vickers indentations, prior to and after the application and polymerization of the self-adhesive resin cements. Results for crack propagation were converted to polymerization stress values, and statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA followed by Scheffé post hoc test.

Results

SmartCem 2 presented higher stress values than iCEM, SoloCem, and Ketac Cem, while Ketac Cem showed lower values than Bifix SE, Maxcem Elite, SmartCem 2, SpeedCEM, and RelyX Unicem 2.

Conclusions

Self-adhesive resin composite cements differ in their polymerization stress, which may affect the durability of the restoration. For restorations made from ceramics with lower flexural strength, such as feldspar ceramics, resin composite cement materials with less polymerization stress should be preferred.

Clinical Relevance

As a high polymerization shrinkage may increase crack propagation, the determination of the polymerization stress of self-adhesive resin composite cements employed for fixing all-ceramic restorations is an important factor.

Performance of Class I composite restorations when polished immediately or after one-day water storage

This study investigated the effects on gap formation in Class I restorations (observed by vertical and horizontal forms of inspection) and on the mechanical properties of nine resin composite filling materials when the restorations were subject to finishing immediately after setting or after one-day water storage. Class I restorations with resin composite fillings were polished either immediately (3 min) after setting or after one-day water storage. Interfacial gap formation (observed by vertical inspection) was assessed using 14 gap measurement points along the interface between the restoration and cavity walls and floor (n = 10 per resin composite; total points measured per time point = 140). For marginal gaps formed at cavosurface margins in Class I cavities and in Teflon molds, marginal gap formation (observed by horizontal inspection) was assessed by measuring the maximum gap-width and opposing width (if any). Effects on mechanical properties were assessed by measuring shear bond strengths to enamel and dentin, flexural strength and modulus. After one-day storage, marginal gap-widths in Class I restorations were significantly decreased for all composites, alongside a significant increase in shear bond strengths to enamel and dentin, flexural strength and modulus. Resin composite-filled Class I restorations which were polished after one-day delay presented lower gap formation compared with finishing immediately after setting.

The effect of bonding and surface sealant application on postoperative sensitivity from posterior composites

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the postoperative sensitivity of posterior Class I composite restoration at short-term, restorated with two different all-in-one self-etch adhesives with or without surface sealant application.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

44 restorations were inserted in 11 patients who required Class I restorations in their molars. Each patient received 4 restorations, thus four groups were formed; (1) G-Aenial Bond (GC, Japan); (2) Clearfil S3 Bond (Kuraray, Japan); (3) G-Aenial Bond+Fortify Plus (Bisco, USA), (4) Clearfil S3 Bond+Fortify Plus. Sensitivity was evaluated at 24h, 7, 15, and 30 days using cold air, ice, and pressure stimuli using a visual analog scale. Comparisons of continuous variables between the sensitivity evaluations were performed using the Friedman's One-Way Analysis of Variance with repeated measures test (p<0.05).

RESULTS

The type of adhesive used and the application of a surface sealant had no significant effects in postoperative sensitivity (p>0.05). The use of Clearfil S3 Bond resulted in almost the same level of postoperative sensitivity as did the use of G-Aenial Bond. The highest sensitivity scores were observed for the surface sealant applied teeth without any statistical significance (p>0.05).

CONCLUSION

Self etch adhesives displayed postoperative sensitivity. The sensitivity scores slightly decreased at the end of 30 days (p>0.05). Surface sealant application did not result in a decrease in sensitivity scores for either dentin adhesives.

Effects of Fiber-reinforced Composite Bases on Microleakage of Composite Restorations in Proximal Locations

Objectives:

The aim of this study was to evaluate the microleakage of direct restorative composite resin upon the addition of an intermediate glass fiber-reinforced composite (GFRC) layer of various fiber orientations between tooth and particulate filler composite resin (PFRC).

Materials and Methods:

Cavities were prepared both on the mesial and distal surfaces of sixty extracted human molars with one margin placed below and the other above the cementoenamel junction (CEJ). Teeth were assigned to five different groups. Four of the groups received a layer of semi-interpenetrating polymer network (semi-IPN) resin system impregnated E-glass GFRC at the bottom of the cavity: Group 1; unidirectional continuous GFRC (EVS) in buccolingual direction (EVS-BL), Group 2; EVS in mesiodistal direction (EVS-MD), Group 3; bidirectional woven GFRC (EVN), Group 4; multidirectional short GFRC (EXP-MLT), Group 5; PRFC only (control). After acid etching and priming of the cavities and insertion of GFRC layer with the adhesive resin (Scotchbond Multipurpose 3M-ESPE), the cavities were filled incrementally with PRFC (Filtek Z250, 3M-ESPE) and each layer was light cured for 20 s. After finishing and polishing, the restored teeth were water-stored for 24 h at 37 °C and then thermocycled for 6000 cycles between 5-55 °C, before immersion in 0.5 % basic fuchsin dye for 24 h. After sectioning by 3-5 sagittal cuts, each sequential section was imaged and digitally analyzed to determine the stain depth.

Results:

All GFRC groups in dentin revealed significantly lower microleakage compared to control (p<0.05). The orientation of FRC intermediate layer did not reveal significant differences in microleakage (p>0.05). The microleakeage in enamel was not different between the groups (p>0.05).

Conclusion:

Use of intermediate GFRC layer between tooth and PFRC could provide alternative method to minimize microleakage.

Clinical Relevance:

Use of GFRC intermediate layer underneath the particulate filler composite can be used to minimize the leakeage of the restorations.