Correlation between polymerization stress and interfacial integrity of composites restorations assessed by different in vitro tests
Source abstract
Abstract
Objective to correlate polymerization stress data obtained under two compliance conditions with those from different interfacial quality tests. Methods Six commercial composites were tested (Filtek Z250/3M ESPE, Heliomolar/Ivoclar Vivadent, Aelite LS Posterior/Bisco, Filtek Supreme/3M ESPE, ELS/Saremco and Venus Diamond/Heraeus Kulzer). Bond strength (BS) was evaluated by push-out test on slices of bovine dentin (2-mm thick) with tapered cavities. For microleakage (ML) and gap analysis, cylindrical cavities in bovine incisors (4-mm diameter and 1.5-mm height) were restored and epoxy replicas of the cavo-surface margins were prepared for analysis under scanning electron microscopy (200×). The same specimens were submitted to a microleakage protocol using AgNO3 as tracer. After sectioned twice perpendicularly, ML was determined under a stereomicroscope (60×). Polymerization stress (PS, n=5) was determined by the insertion of the composite (h=1.5mm) between poly(methyl methacrylate), PMMA, or glass rods (Ø=4 mm) attached to a universal testing machine. Data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis (ML and gaps), and ANOVA/Tukey (BS and PS, α=5%). Pearson's correlation test was used to verify correlations between stress and interfacial quality. Results BS varied from 4.7 to 7.9 MPa. Average ML data ranged from 0.34 to 0.89 mm. Maximum ML varied from 0.61 to 1.34 mm. Gap incidence varied from 13 to 47%. PS ranged from 2.5 to 4.4 MPa in PMMA, and between 2.1 and 8.2 in glass. Statistically significant correlations were observed between stress and interfacial quality, except between BS and PS in glass. These correlations were stronger when PMMA was used as bonding substrate. Conclusions PS data obtained using a high compliance testing system showed a stronger correlation with "in vitro" interfacial integrity results, compared to data from a low compliance system.
Source: europepmc · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Dental materials and restorations · Dental Erosion and Treatment · Dental Trauma and Treatments
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (44)
Show source-provided references
1. Can modern restorative procedures and materials reliably seal cavities? In vitro investigations. Part 1
2. Longevity of direct resin composite restorations in posterior teeth10.1007/s00784-003-0206-7 ↗
3. Direct composite restorations in posterior region: a case history using a nanohybrid composite
4. Relationship between composite contraction stress and leakage in Class V cavities
5. Setting stress in composite resin in relation to configuration of the restoration10.1177/00220345870660110601 ↗
6. Photo-polymerization shrinkage-stress kinetics in resin-composites: methods development10.1016/S0109-5641(02)00123-9 ↗
7. Towards the elucidation of shrinkage stress development and relaxation in dental composites10.1016/j.dental.2004.05.002 ↗
8. Critical configuration analysis of four methods for measuring polymerization shrinkage strain of composites10.1016/j.dental.2003.11.002 ↗
9. Polymerization contraction stress in thin resin composite layers as a function of layer thickness10.1016/S0109-5641(97)80115-7 ↗
10. Influence of compliance of the substrate materials on polymerization contraction stress in thin resin composite layers10.1016/S0142-9612(96)00140-8 ↗
11. Shrinkage stress in light-cured composite resins: influence of material and photoactivation mode10.1016/j.dental.2006.06.034 ↗
12. Influence of Tg, viscosity and chemical structure of monomers on shrinkage stress in light-cured dimethacrylate-based dental resins10.1016/j.dental.2007.05.017 ↗
13. Assessing the effect of composite formulation on polymerization stress10.14219/jada.archive.2000.0207 ↗
14. Influence of matrix composition on polymerization stress development of experimental composites10.1016/j.dental.2010.03.014 ↗
15. Factors involved in the development of polymerization shrinkage stress in resin-composites: a systematic review10.1016/j.dental.2005.04.018 ↗
16. Composite shrinkage stress as a function of specimen dimensions and compliance of the testing system10.1016/j.dental.2006.01.016 ↗
17. Relationship between contraction stress and degree of conversion in restorative composites10.1016/j.dental.2004.03.003 ↗
18. Contraction stress related to composite inorganic content10.1016/j.dental.2010.03.015 ↗
19. Modulated photoactivation methods: Influence on contraction stress, degree of conversion and push-out bond strength of composite restoratives10.1016/j.jdent.2006.10.003 ↗
20. Polymerization contraction stress of low-shrinkage composites and its correlation with microleakage in class V restorations10.1016/j.jdent.2004.01.014 ↗
21. Correlation between the amount of linear polymerization shrinkage and cuspal deflection10.2341/05-46 ↗
22. Polymerization contraction stress in dual-cure cements and its effect on interfacial integrity of bonded inlays10.1016/S0300-5712(02)00047-7 ↗
23. Influence of the bonding substrate in dental composite polymerization stress testing10.1016/j.actbio.2009.07.003 ↗
24. Polymerization stress of resin composites as a function of system compliance10.1016/j.dental.2007.06.032 ↗
25. Cuspal movement and microleakage in premolar teeth restored with posterior filling materials of varying reported volumetric shrinkage values10.1016/j.jdent.2004.09.007 ↗
26. In vitro cuspal deflection and microleakage of maxillary premolars restored with novel low-shrink dental composites10.1016/j.dental.2004.05.005 ↗
27. Polymerization stress, shrinkage and elastic modulus of current low-shrinkage restorative composites10.1016/j.dental.2010.08.003 ↗
28. Triola · 1999
29. Evaluation of micro-tensile, shear and tensile tests determining the bond strength of three adhesive systems10.1016/S0300-5712(99)00012-3 ↗
30. Bond strength versus dentine structure: a modelling approach10.1016/0003-9969(95)00090-9 ↗
31. Marginal integrity and postoperative sensitivity in Class 2 resin composite restorations in vivo10.1016/S0300-5712(97)00042-0 ↗
32. Comparative in vivo and in vitro investigation of interfacial bond variability
33. Factors influencing marginal cavity adaptation of nanofiller containing resin composite restorations10.1016/j.dental.2010.08.189 ↗
34. Interactions of self-etch adhesives with resin composites10.1016/j.jdent.2007.09.003 ↗
35. Shear bond strengths and microleakage of four types of dentin adhesive materials10.5005/jcdp-5-1-63 ↗
36. Influence of cavity configuration on microleakage around Class V restorations bonded with seven self-etching adhesives10.1111/j.1708-8240.2004.tb00020.x ↗
37. Clinical relevance of tests on bond strength, microleakage and marginal adaptation10.1016/j.dental.2012.07.158 ↗
38. 3D-finite element analyses of cusp movements in a human upper premolar, restored with adhesive resin-based composites10.1016/S0021-9290(01)00098-7 ↗
39. Finite element analysis of bonded model Class I ‘restorations’ after shrinkage10.1016/j.dental.2011.10.001 ↗
40. Tooth deformation patterns in molars after composite restoration10.1016/j.dental.2003.05.008 ↗
41. Degree of conversion and post-gel shrinkage of low shrinkage composites
42. Do low-shrink composites reduce polymerization shrinkage effects?10.1177/0022034510396217 ↗
43. Understanding contradictory data in contraction stress tests10.1177/0022034510388039 ↗
44. Residual shrinkage stress distributions in molars after composite restoration10.1016/j.dental.2003.05.007 ↗