Polymerization stress, shrinkage and elastic modulus of current low-shrinkage restorative composites

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. (C) 2010 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Influence of the bonding substrate in dental composite polymerization stress testing

Our objective was to compare the polymerization stress (sigma(pol)) of a series of composites obtained using poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) or glass as bonding substrates, and to compare the results with those from in vitro microleakage of composite restorations. The tested hypothesis was that stress values obtained in a less rigid testing system (i.e. using PMMA) would show a better relationship with microleakage data. Five dental composites were tested: Filtek Z250 (FZ), Z100 (Z1), Concept (CO), Durafill (DU) and Heliomolar (HM). sigma(pol) was determined in 1 mm high specimens inserted between two rods (empty set = 5 mm) of either PMMA or glass. The composite elastic modulus (E) was obtained by three-point bending. sigma(pol) and E data were submitted to a one-way analysis of variance/Tukey test (alpha = 0.05). For the microleakage test (MI), bovine incisors received cylindrical cavities (empty set = 5 mm, h = 2 mm), which were restored in bulk. After storage for 24 h in water, specimens were subjected to dye penetration using AgNO(3) as tracer. Specimens were sectioned twice, perpendicularly, and microleakage was measured (in millimeters) under 20x magnification. Data from MI were submitted to the Kruskal-Wallis test. Means (SD) of sigma(pol) (MPa) using glass/PMMA were FZ: 7.5(1.8)(A)/2.5(0.2)(bc); Z1: 7.3(0.5)(A)/2.8(0.3)(ab); CO: 6.8(1.1)(A)/3.2(0.5)(a); DU: 4.5(0.7)(B)/2.0(0.2)(bc); HM: 3.5(0.2)(B)/2.3(0.3)(c). sigma(pol) obtained using PMMA rods were 34-67% lower than with glass. Means (SD) for tooth average/tooth maximum microleakage were FZ: 0.92(0.19)(B)/1.53(0.30)(a); Z1: 1.19(0.21)(A)/1.75(0.20)(a); CO: 1.26(0.25)(A)/1.78(0.24)(a); DU: 0.83(0.30)(B)/1.68(0.46)(a): HM: 0.81(0.27)(B)/1.64(0.54)(a). The tested hypothesis was confirmed, as the composites showed the same ordering both in the polymerization stress test using PMMA rods and in the microleakage test. (C) 2009 Acta Materialia Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.