A revised classification for direct tooth-colored restorative materials

Composite resins and glass-ionomer cements were introduced to dentistry in the 1960s and 1970s, respectively. Since then, there has been a series of modifications to both materials as well as the development other groups claiming intermediate characteristics between the two. The result is a confusion of materials leading to selection problems. While both materials are tooth-colored, there is a considerable difference in their properties, and it is important that each is used in the appropriate situation. Composite resin materials are esthetic and now show acceptable physical strength and wear resistance. However, they are hydrophobic, and therefore more difficult to handle in the oral environment, and cannot support ion migration. Also, the problems of gaining long-term adhesion to dentin have yet to be overcome. On the other hand, glass ionomers are water-based and therefore have the potential for ion migration, both inward and outward from the restoration, leading to a number of advantages. However, they lack the physical properties required for use in load-bearing areas. A logical classification designed to differentiate the materials was first published by McLean et al in 1994, but in the last 15 years, both types of material have undergone further research and modification. This paper is designed to bring the classification up to date so that the operator can make a suitable, evidence-based, choice when selecting a material for any given situation.

Does an incremental filling technique reduce polymerization shrinkage stresses

It is widely accepted that volumetric contraction and solidification during the polymerization process of restorative composites in combination with bonding to the hard tissue result in stress transfer and inward deformation of the cavity walls of the restored tooth. Deformation of the walls decreases the size of the cavity during the filling process. This fact has a profound influence on the assumption-raised and discussed in this paper-that an incremental filling technique reduces the stress effect of composite shrinkage on the tooth. Developing stress fields for different incremental filling techniques are simulated in a numerical analysis. The analysis shows that, in a restoration with a well-established bond to the tooth-as is generally desired-incremental filling techniques increase the deformation of the restored tooth. The increase is caused by the incremental deformation of the preparation, which effectively decreases the total amount of composite needed to fill the cavity. This leads to a higher-stressed tooth-composite structure. The study also shows that the assessment of intercuspal distance measurements as well as simplifications based on generalization of the shrinkage stress state cannot be sufficient to characterize the effect of polymerization shrinkage in a tooth-restoration complex. Incremental filling methods may need to be retained for reasons such as densification, adaptation, thoroughness of cure, and bond formation. However, it is very difficult to prove that incrementalization needs to be retained because of the abatement of shrinkage effects.