Influence of Bulk-fill Restoration on Polymerization Shrinkage Stress and Marginal Gap Formation in Class V Restorations

Correia, Amo; Andrade,; Tribst, Jpm; Borges, Alexandre Luiz Souto; Caneppele, Taciana Marco Ferraz

doi:10.2341/19-062-l

Cited by 33 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…According to the obtained results, cavities adhesively restored with conventional composite resin presented higher residual stress concentrations. Therefore, this result is in agreement with the literature which has reported that high modulus conventional resin composite can promote a significant effect on the marginal microleakage as a shrinkage, debonding or fracturing of the adhesive interface [15,34,35].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Computer Aided Design Modelling and Finite Element Analysis of Premolar Proximal Cavities Restored with Resin Composites

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study evaluated the stress distribution in five different class II cavities of premolar models restored with conventional or bulk-fill flowable composite by means of finite element analysis (FEA) under shrinkage and occlusal loading. An upper validated premolar model was imported in the software, and five class II cavities with different occlusal extensions and dimensions were prepared: horizontal cavity on the mesial surface (horizontal slot), mesio-occlusal cavity, mesial cavity (vertical slot), tunnel type cavity and direct access cavity. The models were restored with conventional or bulk-fill flowable resin composite. The tested materials were considered as homogeneous, linear, and isotropic. The Maximum Principal Stress criteria was chosen to evaluate the tensile stress results. The lowest shrinkage stress value was observed in the direct access cavity restored with bulk-fill flowable resin composite (36.12 MPa). The same cavity, restored with conventional composite showed a score of 36.14 MPa. The horizontal slot cavity with bulk-fill flowable showed a score of 46.71 MPa. The mesio-occlusal cavity with bulk-fill flowable had a score of 53.10 MPa, while with conventional composite this was 55.35 MPa. Higher shrinkage stress was found in the vertical slot cavity with conventional resin 56.14 MPa, followed by the same cavity with bulk-fill flowable 56.08 MPa. Results indicated that the use of bulk-fill flowable composite resin more significantly decreased the polymerization shrinkage stress magnitude. The larger the cavity and the volume of material necessary to restore the tooth, the greater the residual stress on enamel and dentin tissue.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Computer Aided Design Modelling and Finite Element Analysis of Premolar Proximal Cavities Restored with Resin Composites

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Acrylic resin, resin composite and PEEK have shown, in previous studies [44], high bond strength values when the substrate receives an adequate surface treatment. In addition to debonding, the stress in the adhesive interface can also be associated with marginal infiltration [30,33,45], which can lead to postoperative sensitivity. Therefore, in this study, the acrylic resin showed the greatest chance of marginal infiltration over time.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The use of PEEK has been proposed in dentistry due to the positive results observed in medicine, showing indication to be applied as definitive material associated with ceramic veneering application [45,46]. In addition, it was reported [8] that PEEK is a rigid material with excellent thermal stability and resistance to wear without mechanical properties changing during the sterilization process.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…FEA is widely used in dental studies to analyze the biomechanical behavior of materials; however, there are also limitations to be considered that must be complemented with data from previous studies prior to a clinical decision [28,31,45,50,51]. The absence of pH simulation [51,57,58], biofilm, temperature and the use of isotropic materials are examples of limitations to be considered when evaluating the results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Influence of Polymeric Restorative Materials on the Stress Distribution in Posterior Fixed Partial Dentures: 3D Finite Element Analysis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: This study evaluated the effect of interim restorative materials (acrylic resin (AR), resin composite (RC) or polyetheretherketone (PEEK) for dental computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM)) on the stress distribution of a posterior three-unit fixed partial denture. Methods: The abutment teeth (first molar and first premolar) were modeled using the BioCAD protocol containing 1.5 mm of axial reduction and converging axial walls. A static structural analysis was performed in the computer-aided engineering software, and the Maximum Principal Stress criterion was used to analyze the prosthesis and the cement layers of both abutment teeth. The materials were considered isotropic, linearly elastic, homogeneous and with bonded contacts. An axial load (600 N) was applied to the occlusal surface of the second premolar. Results: Regardless of the restorative material, the region of the prosthetic connectors showed the highest tensile stress magnitude. The highest stress peak was observed with the use of RC (129 MPa) compared to PEEK and AR. For the cement layers, RC showed the lowest values in the occlusal region (7 MPa) and the highest values for the cervical margin (14 MPa) compared to PEEK (21 and 12 MPa) and AR (21 and 13 MPa). Conclusions: Different interim restorative materials for posterior fixed partial dentures present different biomechanical behavior. The use of resin composite can attenuate the stress magnitude on the cement layer, and the use of acrylic resin can attenuate the stress magnitude on the connector region.

show abstract

“…Gap formation at tooth–restoration interfaces can be due to cyclic loading during chewing [ 46 ]. Furthermore, interfacial gaps may develop as a consequence of shrinkage stresses if the shrinkage forces of the resin composite exceed the tooth–composite bond strength [ 47 ]. Previous studies revealed lower shrinkage stress formation of flowable and sculptable bulk-fill composites compared with their conventional counterparts which, together with increased curing light transmittance, allows placement of bulk-fill composites in thicker increments [ 12 , 14 , 48 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Margin Integrity of Bulk-Fill Composite Restorations in Primary Teeth

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This in vitro study examined the margin integrity of sculptable and flowable bulk-fill resin composites in Class II cavities of primary molars. Standardized Class II cavities were prepared in human primary molars and restored with the following resin composite materials after application of a universal adhesive: a sculptable bulk-fill composite (Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill (TEC) or Admira Fusion x-tra (AFX)), a flowable bulk-fill composite (Venus Bulk Fill (VBF) or SDR), or a conventional composite (Filtek Supreme XTE (FS)). The bulk-fill materials were applied in 4 mm layers, while the conventional composite was applied in either 2 mm (FS2, positive control) or 4 mm layers (FS4, negative control). The specimens were exposed to thermo-mechanical loading (TML) in a computer-controlled masticator. A quantitative margin analysis was performed both before and after TML using scanning electron microscopy, and the percentage of continuous margins (margin integrity) was statistically analyzed (α = 0.05). All composites showed a significant decline in margin integrity after TML. AFX exhibited the significantly highest margin integrity of all materials after TML (97.5 ± 2.3%), followed by FS2 (79.2 ± 10.8%), TEC (73.0 ± 9.1%), and FS4 (71.3 ± 14.6%). SDR (43.6 ± 22.3%) and VBF (25.0 ± 8.5%) revealed the lowest margin integrity. In conclusion, the tested sculptable bulk-fill materials show similar or better margin integrity in primary molars than the conventional resin composite placed in 2 mm increments.

show abstract

Influence of Bulk-fill Restoration on Polymerization Shrinkage Stress and Marginal Gap Formation in Class V Restorations

Abstract: Clinical Relevance Restoring Class V cavities with a regular bulk-fill composite presents a more favorable biomechanical behavior than restoring with a regular nano-filled composite.

Cited by 33 publications

References 47 publications

Computer Aided Design Modelling and Finite Element Analysis of Premolar Proximal Cavities Restored with Resin Composites

Computer Aided Design Modelling and Finite Element Analysis of Premolar Proximal Cavities Restored with Resin Composites

Influence of Polymeric Restorative Materials on the Stress Distribution in Posterior Fixed Partial Dentures: 3D Finite Element Analysis

Margin Integrity of Bulk-Fill Composite Restorations in Primary Teeth

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About