2017
DOI: 10.7860/jcdr/2017/20159.10440
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effect of Different Composite Restorations on the Cuspal Deflection of Premolars Restored with Different Insertion Techniques- An In vitro Study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
11
0
4

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
0
11
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…The cuspal deflection results from the interaction between polymerization shrinkage stress of composite and cavity wall compliance, and should be understood biomechanically. The biomechanical factors can be classified into three main categories 3,4) : (1) Material factor, which relates to the physical properties, such as polymerization shrinkage, flowability, viscosity, and elastic modulus of composites [5][6][7][8][9][10][11] ; (2) Geometric factor, such as the cavity shape and size and the compliance of cavity wall [2][3][4]12) ; (3) Clinical factor that is technically changeable in clinical situations, such as bulk or incremental filling 1,[13][14][15][16][17] , direct or indirect restoration 3,18) , and light-curing protocols [19][20][21][22][23] .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The cuspal deflection results from the interaction between polymerization shrinkage stress of composite and cavity wall compliance, and should be understood biomechanically. The biomechanical factors can be classified into three main categories 3,4) : (1) Material factor, which relates to the physical properties, such as polymerization shrinkage, flowability, viscosity, and elastic modulus of composites [5][6][7][8][9][10][11] ; (2) Geometric factor, such as the cavity shape and size and the compliance of cavity wall [2][3][4]12) ; (3) Clinical factor that is technically changeable in clinical situations, such as bulk or incremental filling 1,[13][14][15][16][17] , direct or indirect restoration 3,18) , and light-curing protocols [19][20][21][22][23] .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, these studies have some limitations. Differences in anatomical and histological structures of extracted human tooth specimens and the size and shape of prepared cavity can cause variations in the cuspal deflections 12,16,17) . In an effort to reduce these deviations, several studies using aluminum molds have been reported, however, the shape and size of aluminum molds are somewhat different from the human tooth cavity 1,2,10,14) .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The cuspal deflection was estimated after 15 minutes of finishing restoration by measuring the distance between both reference points which was longer and slower than other composites in the polymerization shrinkage, through this time the largest degree of inward displacement was happened as reported by many previous studies (18)(19)(20) . This is due to the remaining free radicals.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…However, differences in anatomical and histological structures among human teeth and the size and shape of prepared cavity can cause variations in measuring cuspal deflections. 12 , 13 , 14 Therefore, the use of standardized aluminum molds is recommended since their compliance can be easily altered by varying mold wall thickness and experimental errors can be reduced by using precisely milled cavities. In the present study, to control compliance quantitatively, aluminum blocks with different wall thicknesses simulating class II mesio-occluso-distal (MOD) cavities were used.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%