A comparative study between crack analysis and a mechanical test for assessing the polymerization stress of restorative composites

Objectives. To verify the hypothesis that crack analysis and a mechanical test would rank a series of composites in a similar order with respect to polymerization stress. Also, both tests would show similar relationships between stress and composite elastic modulus and/or shrinkage. Methods. Soda-lime glass discs (2-mm thick) with a central perforation (3.5-mm diameter) received four Vickers indentations 500 mu m from the cavity margin. The indent cracks were measured (500x) prior and 10 min after the cavity was restored with one of six materials (Kalore/KL, Gradia/GR, Ice/IC, Wave/WV, Majesty Flow/MF, and Majesty Posterior/MP). Stresses at the indent site were calculated based on glass fracture toughness and increase in crack length. Stress at the bonded interface was calculated using the equation for an internally pressurized cylinder. The mechanical test used a universal testing machine and glass rods (5-mm diameter) as substrate. An extensometer monitored specimen height (2 mm). Nominal stress was calculated dividing the maximum shrinkage force by the specimen cross-sectional area. Composite elastic modulus was determined by nanoindentation and post-gel shrinkage was measured using strain gages. Data were subjected to one-way ANOVA/Tukey or Kruskal-Wallis/Mann-Whitney tests (alpha: 5%). Results. Both tests grouped the composites in three statistical subsets, with small differences in overlapping between the intermediate subset (MF, WV) and the highest (MP, IC) or the lowest stress materials (KL, GR). Higher stresses were developed by composites with high modulus and/or high shrinkage. Significance. Crack analysis demonstrated to be as effective as the mechanical test to rank composites regarding polymerization stress. (c) 2012 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Conservative approach to restore the first molar with extensive destruction: a 30-month follow-up

The available options for restoring multiple surface cavities are: amalgam, composite resin, or indirect restorations. Adhesive system and intradentinal pin-retained composite resin restorations should have a similar performance to pin-retained amalgam, regarding resistance to support occlusal forces. Polymerization shrinkage is a major concern when performing direct posterior composite resin restorations and the incremental insertion technique can provide less stress and outstanding margin behavior. Intradentinal pins can potentially enhance composite resin's retention, while reducing gaps caused by polymerization shrinkage. This article reports a clinical case involving an extensive restoration on a posterior tooth with cusp loss that was successfully treated using an intradentinal pin and direct nano-hybrid composite resin restoration.

56-month clinical performance of Class I and II resin composite restorations

Objective: This study evaluated the 56-month clinical performance of Class I and II resin composite restorations. Filtek P60 was compared with Filtek Z250, which are both indicated for posterior restorations but differ in terms of handling characteristics. The null hypothesis tested was that there is no difference in the clinical performance of the two resin composites in posterior teeth. Material and Methods: Thirty-three patients were treated by the same operator, who prepared 48 Class I and 42 Class II cavities, which were restored with Single Bond/Filtek Z250 or Single Bond/Filtek P60 restorative systems. Restorations were evaluated by two independent examiners at baseline and after 56 months, using the modified USPHS criteria. Data were analyzed statistically using Chi-square and Fisher's Exact tests (alpha=0.05). Results: After 56 months, 25 patients (31 Class I and 36 Class II) were analyzed. A 3% failure rate occurred due to secondary caries and excessive loss of anatomic form for P60. For both restorative systems, there were no significant differences in secondary caries and postoperative sensitivity. However, significant changes were observed with respect to anatomic form, marginal discoloration, and marginal adaptation. Significant decreases in surface texture were observed exclusively for the Z250 restorations. Conclusions: Both restorative systems can be used for posterior restorations and can be expected to perform well in the oral environment.