Impact of Quantity of Resin, C-factor, and Geometry on Resin Composite Polymerization Shrinkage Stress in Class V Restorations

Objective: This study evaluated the effect of quantity of resin composite, C-factor, and geometry in Class V restorations on shrinkage stress after bulk fill insertion of resin using two-dimensional finite element analysis.Methods: An image of a buccolingual longitudinal plane in the middle of an upper first premolar and supporting tissues was used for modeling 10 groups: cylindrical cavity, erosion, and abfraction lesions with the same C-factor (1.57), a second cylindrical cavity and abfraction lesion with the same quantity of resin (QR) as the erosion lesion, and then all repeated with a bevel on the occlusal cavosurface angle. The 10 groups were imported into Ansys 13.0 for two-dimensional finite element analysis. The mesh was built with 30,000 triangle and square elements of 0.1 mm in length for all the models. All materials were considered isotropic, homogeneous, elastic, and linear, and the resin composite shrinkage was simulated by thermal analogy. The maximum principal (MPS) and von Mises stresses (VMS) were analyzed for comparing the behavior of the groups.Results: Different values of angles for the cavosurface margin in enamel and dentin were obtained for all groups and the higher the angle, the lower the stress concentration. When the groups with the same C-factor and QR were compared, the erosion shape cavity showed the highest MPS and VMS values, and abfraction shape, the lowest. A cavosurface bevel decreased the stress values on the occlusal margin. The geometry factor overcame the effects of C-factor and QR in some situations.Conclusion: Within the limitations of the current methodology, it is possible to conclude that the combination of all variables studied influences the stress, but the geometry is the most important factor to be considered by the operator.

The effect of offset implant configuration on bone stress distribution: a systematic review

Purpose: The aim of this systematic review was to compare straight-line and offset implant configurations for three-element implant-retained prostheses. Materials and Methods: Two independent reviewers conducted a review on PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library for studies published in English, from January 1, 1995 to January 17, 2014. A systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA statement. All relevant titles were selected according to inclusion/exclusion criteria. From this pool of titles, abstracts and full texts were reviewed. Results: A total of 6080 titles were identified with the initial search. Twenty-one were selected based on title and abstract. Of these, after discussion and complete reading, 12 studies were selected according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, all of which were in vitro studies. Conclusions: A systematic review of the current literature showed only in vitro evidence that there is no consensus on the advantage of using an offset configuration implant compared to those in straight-line configuration, even though some studies present a slight improvement of bone stress distribution when an offset implant is under oblique loading (PICO).