The influence of "C-factor" and light activation technique on polymerization contraction forces of resin composite

Objectives: This study evaluated the influence of the cavity configuration factor ("C-Factor") and light activation technique on polymerization contraction forces of a Bis-GMA-based composite resin (Charisma, Heraeus Kulzer). Material and Methods: Three different pairs of steel moving bases were connected to a universal testing machine (Emic DL 500): groups A and B - 2x2 mm (CF=0.33), groups C and D - 3x2 mm (CF=0.66), groups E and F - 6x2 mm (CF=1.5). After adjustment of the height between the pair of bases so that the resin had a volume of 12 mm(3) in all groups, the material was inserted and polymerized by two different methods: pulse delay (100 mW/cm(2) for 5 s, 40 s interval, 600 mW/cm(2) for 20 s) and continuous pulse (600 mW/cm(2) for 20 s). Each configuration was light cured with both techniques. Tensions generated during polymerization were recorded by 120 s. The values were expressed in curves (Force(N) x Time(s)) and averages compared by statistical analysis (ANOVA and Tukey's test, p<0.05). Results: For the 2x2 and 3x2 bases, with a reduced C-Factor, significant differences were found between the light curing methods. For 6x2 base, with high C-Factor, the light curing method did not influence the contraction forces of the composite resin. Conclusions: Pulse delay technique can determine less stress on tooth/restoration interface of adhesive restorations only when a reduced C-Factor is present.

Analysis of surface hardness of artificially aged resin composites

This study evaluated the effect of artificially accelerated aging (AAA) on the surface hardness of eight composite resins: Filtek Z250, Filtek Supreme, 4 Seasons, Herculite, P60, Tetric Ceram, Charisma, and Filtek Z100. Sixteen specimens were made from the test piece of each material, using an 8.0 × 2.0 mm teflon matrix. After 24 hours, eight specimens from each material were submitted to three surface hardness readings using a Shimadzu Microhardness Tester for 5 seconds at a load of 50 gf. The other eight specimens remained in the artificially accelerated aging machine for 382 hours and were submitted to the same surface hardness analysis. The means of each test specimen were submitted to the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (p > 0.05), ANOVA and Tukey test (p < 0.05). With regard to hardness (F = 86.74, p < 0.0001) the analysis showed significant differences among the resin composite brands. But aging did not influence the hardness of any of the resin composites (F = 0.39, p = 0.53). In this study, there was interaction between the resin composite brand and the aging factors (F = 4.51, p < 0.0002). It was concluded that notwithstanding the type of resin, AAA did not influence surface hardness. However, with regard to hardness there was a significant difference among the resin brands.