Polymerization Shrinkage of Different Types of Composite Resins and Microleakage With and Without Liner in Class II Cavities

Abstract

The use of RMGIC liner with composite resin restorations reduces microleakage. The silorane-based composite showed lower volumetric polymerization shrinkage than methacrylate-based composites. SUMMARYAim: To determine the volumetric polymerization shrinkage of four different types of composite resin and to evaluate microleakage of these materials in class II (MOD) cavities with and without a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) liner, in vitro.Materials and Methods: One hundred twentyeight extracted human upper premolar teeth were used. After the teeth were divided into eight groups (n=16), standardized MOD cavities were prepared. Then the teeth were restored with different resin composites (Filtek Supreme XT, Filtek P 60, Filtek Silorane, Filtek Z 250) with and without a RMGIC liner (Vitrebond). The restorations were finished and polished after 24 hours. Following thermocycling, the teeth were immersed in 0.5% basic fuchsin for 24 hours, then midsagitally sectioned in a mesiodistal plane and examined for microleakage using a stereomicroscope. The volumetric polymerization shrinkage of materials was measured using a video imaging device (Acuvol, Bisco, Inc). Data were statistically analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis and MannWhitney U-tests.Results: All teeth showed microleakage, but placement of RMGIC liner reduced microleakage. No statistically significant differences were found in microleakage between the teeth restored without RMGIC liner (p.0.05). Filtek Silorane showed significantly less volumetric polymerization shrinkage than the methacrylate-based composite resins (p,0.05).Conclusion: The use of RMGIC liner with both silorane-and methacrylate-based composite resin restorations resulted in reduced microleakage. The volumetric polymerization

Marginal sealing of relocated cervical margins of mesio-occluso-distal overlays

“…However, two studies showed that, after being subjected to thermal and mechanical stress, luting directly to dentin (conventional technique) resulted in superior marginal adaptation as compared with CMR composite on dentin (21,23). The present findings might have been affected by polymerization shrinkage of the resin composite materials used for making the CMR and luting the overlay (51)(52)(53)(54).…”

Microleakage of Class I and II Composite Resin Restorations Using a Sonic-resin Placement System

“…This process, in turn, permits bacterial ingress with recurrent caries, sensitivity, possible pulpal inflammation, and, finally, restoration removal and reinsertion as final outcomes. 9,11,17 Solutions for some of these specific material and clinical dilemmas have included the introduction of ''packable'' and ''flowable'' composites-allowing for enhanced adaptability of overlying materials; the usage of different insertion techniques (incremental vs bulk); and different restoration delivery methods (thermal and/or sonic energy). [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] However, many of these restorative solutions have shown conflicting results with regard to the effects on material shrinkage and marginal microleakage of contaminants.…”

“…9,11,17 Solutions for some of these specific material and clinical dilemmas have included the introduction of ''packable'' and ''flowable'' composites-allowing for enhanced adaptability of overlying materials; the usage of different insertion techniques (incremental vs bulk); and different restoration delivery methods (thermal and/or sonic energy). [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] However, many of these restorative solutions have shown conflicting results with regard to the effects on material shrinkage and marginal microleakage of contaminants. [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] Recently, a composite delivery system together with a proprietary composite formulation has been introduced to the market to compensate for the misgivings (physical, material, and clinical) of composite resin science technology.…”

Restorative nanomaterials in dentistry

“…В исследованиях in vitro E. Karaman (2014) [9] и P. Bogra (2012) [10] не выявлено преимуществ нанокомпо-зитов (Ceram X и Filtek Supreme XT) в усадке при полиме-ризации и краевой проницаемости пломб перед традици-онными композитами и композитом на основе силорана (Filtek Silorane).…”