Fracture resistance of teeth with MOD restorations
effect of the resin matrix and the photoactivation method
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7308/aodontol/2013.49.4.02Keywords:
Composite resins, Compression strength, PolymerizationAbstract
Aim: To evaluate the effect of two composite resins of different polymeric matrices and the photoactivation technique as regards fracture resistance by, compression of maxillary pre-molars with Class II restorations.
Materials and Methods: MOD cavities were prepared in 56 premolars, simulating endodontic treatments. The teeth were divided into four groups (n=14): G1: conventional photoactivation, restoration with Filtek Z350XT (3M ESPE) and adhesive Adper Single Bond 2 (3M ESPE); G2: Pulse delay photoactivation, restoration with Filtek Z350XT and adhesive Adper Single Bond 2; G3: conventional photoactivation, restoration with Filtek P90 (3M ESPE) and self-adhesion of Filtek P90 (3M ESPE); and G4: pulse delay photoactivation, restoration with Filtek P90 and self-adhesion of Filtek P90. In G1 and G3 (conventional photoactivation), the composite resin was applied at 2 mm increments, each of which was light cured for 40 seconds, using a LED unit, at an intensity of 500 mw/cm2, measured with a radiometer (Demetron). In G2 and G4 (pulse delay photoactivation), the composite resin was also applied at 2 mm increments; however, each increment was initially photoactivated for 5 seconds at 300 mw/cm2. After a period of 5 minutes, a new photoactivation was performed for 40 seconds at an intensity of 500 mw/cm2. The photoactivation was repeated for each increment. After 24 hours, the specimens were polished and tested for compression, with cylindrical/round active tip (Instron – 0.5 mm/ min). The ANOVA 2 and Tukey tests were used for statistical analyses (p > 0.05).
Results: Mean values (Newtons) were as follows: G1: 1157.98 (±444.62); G2: 1404.14 (±391.82); G3: 1255.30 (±422.34); and G4: 1213.76 (±419.95). The resistance to fracture by compression of the pre-molars with MOD restorations proved to be statistically similar in the four evaluated groups.
Conclusion: No significant differences could be observed regarding the two composite resins with different polymeric matrices and the different photoactivation methods.
Downloads
References
Leprince JG, Palin WM., Mullier T, Devaux J, Vevren J, Leloup G. Investigating filler morphology and mechanical properties of new low-shrinkage resin composite types. J Oral Rehabil. 2010;37:364–76.
Anusavice KJ. Phillips materiais dentários. Rio de Janeiro: Guanabara Koogan; 1998.
Kemp–Scholte CM, Davidson CL. Marginal sealing of curing contraction gaps in class V composite resin restaurations. J Dent Res. 1998;67:841-5.
Sakaguchi RL, Wiltbank BD, Murchison CF. Contraction force rate of polymer composites is linearly correlated with irradiance. Dent Mater. 2004;20:402-7.
Labella R, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Buonocore memorial lecture: evaluation of clinical performance for posterior composites and filled adhesives. Oper Dent, 1987;12:53-78.
Min SH, Ferracane J, Lee IB. Effect of shrinkage strain, modulus, and instrument compliance on polymerization shrinkage stress of light-cured composites during the initial curing stage. Dent Mater. 2010;26:1024–33.
Duarte Júnior S, Botta AC, Phark JH, Sadan
A. Select mechanical and physical properties and clinical application of a new low-shrinkage composite restauration. Quintessence Int. 2009;40:631-8.
Eick JD, Kotha SA, Chappelow CC, Kilway KV, Giese GJ, Glaros AG, et al. Properties of silorane-based dental resins and composites containing a stress-reducing monomer. Dent Mater. 2007;23:1011–17.
Asmussen E, Peutzfeldt A. Influence of composition on rate of polymerization contraction of light-curing resin composites. Acta Odontol Scand. 2002;60:146-54.
Davidson CL, De Gee AJ. Light–curing units, polymerization and clinical implications. J Adhes Dent. 2000;2:167-73.
Bouschlicher MR, Rueggeberg FA. Effect of ramped light intensity on polymerization force and conversion in a photoactived composite. J Esthet Dent. 2000;12:328-39.
Soh MS, Yapa UJ, Siow KS. Post-gel shrinkage with different modes of LED and halogen light curing lights. Oper Dent. 2004;29:317-24.
Lim BS, Ferracane JL, Sakaguchi RL, Condon JR. Reduction of polymerization contraction stress for dental composites by two-step light- activation. Dent Mat. 2002;18:436-44.
Chan DCN, Browning WD, Frazier KB, Brackett MG. Clinical evaluation of the soft- start (pulse-delay) polymerization technique in class I and II composite restorations. Oper Dent. 2008;33(3):265-71.
Watts DC, Satterthwaite JD. Axial shrinkage- stress depends upon both C-factor and composite mass. Dent Mater. 2008;24:1–8.
Van Dijken JWV. Durability of resin composite restorations in high C-factor cavities: a 12-year follow-up. J Dent. 2010.
Palin WM, Fleming GJP, Nathwani H, Burke FJT, Randall RC. In vitro cuspal deflection and microleakage of maxillary premolars restored with novel low-shrink dental composites. Dent Mater. 2005;21:324-35.
Van Landuyt KL, Kanumilli P, Munck J, Peumans M, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. Bond strength of a mild self-etch adhesive with and without prior acidetching. J Dent. 2006;34(1):77-85.
Weinmann W, Thalacker C, Guggenberger R. Siloranes in dental composites. Dent Mater. 2005;21:68-74.
Papadogiannis D, Kakaboura A, Palaghias G, Eliades G. Setting characteristics and cavity adaptation of low-shrinking resin composites. Dent Mater. 2009;25:1509-16.
Bates JF, Stafford GD, Harrison A. Masticatory function: a review of the literature.III. Masticatory performance and efficiency. J Oral Rehabil. 1976;3:57-67.
Batalha-Silva S, Andrada MAC, Maia HP, Magne
P. Fatigue resistance and crack propensity of large MOD composite resin restorations: Direct versus CAD/CAM inlays. Dent Mater. 2013;29:324-31.
