Polymerization shrinkage evaluation of three packable composite resins using a gas pycnometer

Expanding Monomers as Anti-Shrinkage Additives

Commonly, volumetric shrinkage occurs during polymerizations due to the shortening of the equilibrium Van der Waals distance of two molecules to the length of a (significantly shorter) covalent bond. This volumetric shrinkage can have severe influence on the materials’ properties. One strategy to overcome this volumetric shrinkage is the use of expanding monomers that show volumetric expansion during polymerization reactions. Such monomers exhibit cyclic or even oligocyclic structural motifs with a correspondingly dense atomic packing. During the ring-opening reaction of such monomers, linear structures with atomic packing of lower density are formed, which results in volumetric expansion or at least reduced volumetric shrinkage. This review provides a concise overview of expanding monomers with a focus on the elucidation of structure-property relationships. Preceded by a brief introduction of measuring techniques for the quantification of volumetric changes, the most prominent classes of expanding monomers will be presented and discussed, namely cycloalkanes and cycloalkenes, oxacycles, benzoxazines, as well as thiocyclic compounds. Spiroorthoesters, spiroorthocarbonates, cyclic carbonates, and benzoxazines are particularly highlighted.

Alternative methods for determining shrinkage in restorative resin composites

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to evaluate polymerization shrinkage of resin composites using a coordinate measuring machine, optical coherence tomography and a more widely known method, such as Archimedes Principle. Two null hypothesis were tested: (1) there are no differences between the materials tested; (2) there are no differences between the methods used for polymerization shrinkage measurements.

METHODS

Polymerization shrinkage of seven resin-based dental composites (Filtek Z250™, Filtek Z350™, Filtek P90™/3M ESPE, Esthet-X™, TPH Spectrum™/Dentsply 4 Seasons™, Tetric Ceram™/Ivoclar-Vivadent) was measured. For coordinate measuring machine measurements, composites were applied to a cylindrical Teflon mold (7 mm × 2 mm), polymerized and removed from the mold. The difference between the volume of the mold and the volume of the specimen was calculated as a percentage. Optical coherence tomography was also used for linear shrinkage evaluations. The thickness of the specimens was measured before and after photoactivation. Polymerization shrinkage was also measured using Archimedes Principle of buoyancy (n=5). Statistical analysis of the data was performed with ANOVA and the Games-Howell test.

RESULTS

The results show that polymerization shrinkage values vary with the method used. Despite numerical differences the ranking of the resins was very similar with Filtek P90 presenting the lowest shrinkage values.

SIGNIFICANCE

Because of the variations in the results, reported values could only be used to compare materials within the same method. However, it is possible rank composites for polymerization shrinkage and to relate these data from different test methods. Independently of the method used, reduced polymerization shrinkage was found for silorane resin-based composite.

Polymerization shrinkage and hygroscopic expansion of contemporary posterior resin-based filling materials—A comparative study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the polymerization shrinkage and hygroscopic expansion of contemporary posterior resin-based filling materials.

METHODS

The densities of SureFil (SU), CeramXMono (CM), Clearfil AP-X (CF), Solitaire 2 (SO), TetricEvoCeram (TE), and Filtek P60 (FT) were measured using the Archimedes' principle prior to and 15min after curing for 20, 40 and 60s and after 1h, 24h, 7 d, and 30 d storage at 37 degrees C in water. Volumetric changes (DeltaV) in percent after polymerization and after each storage period in water were calculated from the changes of densities. Water sorption and solubility were determined after 30 d for all specimens and their curing times. Two-way ANOVA was calculated for shrinkage and repeated measures ANOVA was calculated for hygroscopic expansion (p<0.05).

RESULTS

DeltaV depended on filler load but not on curing time (SU approximately -2.0%, CM approximately -2.6%, CF approximately -2.1%, SO approximately -3.3%, TE approximately -1.7%, FT approximately -1.8%). Hygroscopic expansion depended on water sorption and solubility. Except for SU, all materials showed DeltaV approximately +1% after water storage.

CONCLUSION

Polymerization shrinkage depended on the type of resin-based filling material but not on curing time. Shrinkage was not compensated by hygroscopic expansion.