TY - JOUR
T1 - Polymerization stress, shrinkage and elastic modulus of current low-shrinkage restorative composites
AU - Boaro, Letícia Cristina Cidreira
AU - Gonalves, Flávia
AU - Guimarães, Thayse Costa
AU - Ferracane, Jack Liborio
AU - Versluis, Antheunis
AU - Braga, Roberto Ruggiero
N1 - Funding Information:
This study was supported by FAPESP ( 2008/54456-7 ), CAPES ( 3283-08-9 ) and CNPq (Pibic).
PY - 2010/12
Y1 - 2010/12
N2 - Objective: To compare currently available low-shrinkage composites with others regarding polymerization stress, volumetric shrinkage (total and post-gel), shrinkage rate and elastic modulus. Methods: Seven BisGMA-based composites (Durafill/DU, Filtek Z250/FZ, Heliomolar/HM, Aelite LS Posterior/AP, Point 4/P4, Filtek Supreme/SU, ELS/EL), a silorane-based (Filtek LS, LS), a urethane-based (Venus Diamond, VD) and one based on a dimethacrylate-derivative of dimer acid (N′Durance, ND) were tested. Polymerization stress was determined in 1-mm high specimens inserted between two PMMA rods attached to a universal testing machine. Total volumetric shrinkage was measured using a mercury dilatometer. Maximum shrinkage rate was used as a parameter of the reaction speed. Post-gel shrinkage was measured using strain-gages. Elastic modulus was obtained by three-point bending. Data were submitted to one-way ANOVA/Tukey test (p = 0.05), except for elastic modulus (Kruskal-Wallis). Results: Composites ranked differently for total and post-gel shrinkage. Among the materials considered as "low-shrinkage" by the respective manufacturers, LS, EL and VD presented low post-gel shrinkage, while AP and ND presented relatively high values. Polymerization stress showed a strong correlation with post-gel shrinkage except for LS, which presented high stress. Elastic modulus and shrinkage rate showed weak relationships with polymerization stress. Significance: Not all low-shrinkage composites demonstrated reduced polymerization shrinkage. Also, in order to effectively reduce polymerization stress, a low post-gel shrinkage must be associated to a relatively low elastic modulus.
AB - Objective: To compare currently available low-shrinkage composites with others regarding polymerization stress, volumetric shrinkage (total and post-gel), shrinkage rate and elastic modulus. Methods: Seven BisGMA-based composites (Durafill/DU, Filtek Z250/FZ, Heliomolar/HM, Aelite LS Posterior/AP, Point 4/P4, Filtek Supreme/SU, ELS/EL), a silorane-based (Filtek LS, LS), a urethane-based (Venus Diamond, VD) and one based on a dimethacrylate-derivative of dimer acid (N′Durance, ND) were tested. Polymerization stress was determined in 1-mm high specimens inserted between two PMMA rods attached to a universal testing machine. Total volumetric shrinkage was measured using a mercury dilatometer. Maximum shrinkage rate was used as a parameter of the reaction speed. Post-gel shrinkage was measured using strain-gages. Elastic modulus was obtained by three-point bending. Data were submitted to one-way ANOVA/Tukey test (p = 0.05), except for elastic modulus (Kruskal-Wallis). Results: Composites ranked differently for total and post-gel shrinkage. Among the materials considered as "low-shrinkage" by the respective manufacturers, LS, EL and VD presented low post-gel shrinkage, while AP and ND presented relatively high values. Polymerization stress showed a strong correlation with post-gel shrinkage except for LS, which presented high stress. Elastic modulus and shrinkage rate showed weak relationships with polymerization stress. Significance: Not all low-shrinkage composites demonstrated reduced polymerization shrinkage. Also, in order to effectively reduce polymerization stress, a low post-gel shrinkage must be associated to a relatively low elastic modulus.
KW - Elastic modulus
KW - Low-shrinkage composites
KW - Polymerization stress
KW - Shrinkage
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=78049326723&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=78049326723&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.dental.2010.08.003
DO - 10.1016/j.dental.2010.08.003
M3 - Article
C2 - 20832850
AN - SCOPUS:78049326723
SN - 0109-5641
VL - 26
SP - 1144
EP - 1150
JO - Dental Materials
JF - Dental Materials
IS - 12
ER -