Contraction stress of low-shrinkage composite materials assessed with different testing systems

Giulio Marchesi, Lorenzo Breschi, Francesca Antoniolli, Roberto Di Lenarda, Jack Ferracane, Milena Cadenaro

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

90 Scopus citations


Objectives: The contraction stress of a silorane-based material and a new low-shrinkage nanohybrid composite were compared to three conventional dimethacrylate-based resin composites using two different measuring systems. It was hypothesized that the silorane-based material and the low-shrinkage nanohybrid composite would exhibit lower contraction stress than dimethacrylate-based composites irrespective of measuring system. Methods: The materials tested were Filtek Silorane LS (3M ESPE), Venus Diamond (Heraeus Kulzer), Tetric EvoCeram (Ivoclar Vivadent), Quixfil (Dentsply DeTrey), and Filtek Z250 (3M ESPE). Shrinkage stress was assessed using a stress-strain analyzer consisting of two opposing attachments, one connected to a load sensor and the other fixed to the device, or a system fixed to a universal testing machine with an extensometer as a feedback system. All specimens were light-cured with 20 J/cm2; the contraction force (N) generated during polymerization was continuously recorded for 300 s. Contraction stress (MPa) was calculated at both 40 s and 300 s. Data were statistically analyzed by three-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test (α = 0.05). Results: Venus Diamond exhibited the lowest stress under both experimental conditions. Stress values scored as follows: Venus Diamond < Tetric EvoCeram < Filtek Silorane LS < Quixfil < Filtek Z250 (p < 0.05). Stress values measured with the stress-strain analyzer were significantly lower than those measured with the universal testing machine with feedback. Significance: The hypothesis was partially rejected because only Venus Diamond exhibited the lowest stress values among the tested materials. Contraction stress was higher for all composites when measured in a test system with a feedback. This study confirms that simply reducing the shrinkage does not ensure reduced stress development in composites.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)947-953
Number of pages7
JournalDental Materials
Issue number10
StatePublished - Oct 2010


  • Contraction
  • Polymerization
  • Resin composite
  • Silorane
  • Stress

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Materials Science(all)
  • Dentistry(all)
  • Mechanics of Materials


Dive into the research topics of 'Contraction stress of low-shrinkage composite materials assessed with different testing systems'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this