Cargando…

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE SHRINKAGE STRESS OF COMPOSITE RESINS

The aim of this study was to compare the shrinkage stress of composite resins by three methods. In the first method, composites were inserted between two stainless steel plates. One of the plates was connected to a 20 kgf load cell of a universal testing machine (EMIC-DL-500). In the second method,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pereira, Rosana Aparecida, de Araujo, Paulo Amarante, Castañeda-Espinosa, Juan Carlos, Mondelli, Rafael Francisco Lia
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru da Universidade de São Paulo 2008
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4327277/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19089286
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1678-77572008000100007
_version_ 1782357049054593024
author Pereira, Rosana Aparecida
de Araujo, Paulo Amarante
Castañeda-Espinosa, Juan Carlos
Mondelli, Rafael Francisco Lia
author_facet Pereira, Rosana Aparecida
de Araujo, Paulo Amarante
Castañeda-Espinosa, Juan Carlos
Mondelli, Rafael Francisco Lia
author_sort Pereira, Rosana Aparecida
collection PubMed
description The aim of this study was to compare the shrinkage stress of composite resins by three methods. In the first method, composites were inserted between two stainless steel plates. One of the plates was connected to a 20 kgf load cell of a universal testing machine (EMIC-DL-500). In the second method, disk-shaped cavities were prepared in 2-mm-thick Teflon molds and filled with the different composites. Gaps between the composites and molds formed after polymerization were evaluated microscopically. In the third method, the wall-to-wall shrinkage stress of the resins that were placed in bovine dentin cavities was evaluated. The gaps were measured microscopically. Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (α=0.05). The obtained contraction forces were: Grandio = 12.18 ± 0.428N; Filtek Z 250 = 11.80 ± 0.760N; Filtek Supreme = 11.80 ± 0.707 N; and Admira = 11.89 ± 0.647 N. The gaps obtained between composites and Teflon molds were: Filtek Z 250 = 0.51 ± 0.0357%; Filtek Supreme = 0.36 ± 0.0438%; Admira = 0.25 ± 0.0346% and Grandio = 0.16 ± 0.008%. The gaps obtained in wall-to-wall contraction were: Filtek Z 250 = 11.33 ± 2.160 μm; Filtek Supreme = 10.66 ± 1.211μm; Admira = 11.16 ± 2.041 μm and Grandio = 10.50 ± 1.224 μm. There were no significant differences among the composite resins obtained with the first (shrinkage stress generated during polymerization) and third method (wall-to-wall shrinkage). The composite resins obtained with the second method (Teflon method) differed significantly regarding gap formation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4327277
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2008
publisher Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru da Universidade de São Paulo
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-43272772015-04-17 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE SHRINKAGE STRESS OF COMPOSITE RESINS Pereira, Rosana Aparecida de Araujo, Paulo Amarante Castañeda-Espinosa, Juan Carlos Mondelli, Rafael Francisco Lia J Appl Oral Sci Original Article The aim of this study was to compare the shrinkage stress of composite resins by three methods. In the first method, composites were inserted between two stainless steel plates. One of the plates was connected to a 20 kgf load cell of a universal testing machine (EMIC-DL-500). In the second method, disk-shaped cavities were prepared in 2-mm-thick Teflon molds and filled with the different composites. Gaps between the composites and molds formed after polymerization were evaluated microscopically. In the third method, the wall-to-wall shrinkage stress of the resins that were placed in bovine dentin cavities was evaluated. The gaps were measured microscopically. Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (α=0.05). The obtained contraction forces were: Grandio = 12.18 ± 0.428N; Filtek Z 250 = 11.80 ± 0.760N; Filtek Supreme = 11.80 ± 0.707 N; and Admira = 11.89 ± 0.647 N. The gaps obtained between composites and Teflon molds were: Filtek Z 250 = 0.51 ± 0.0357%; Filtek Supreme = 0.36 ± 0.0438%; Admira = 0.25 ± 0.0346% and Grandio = 0.16 ± 0.008%. The gaps obtained in wall-to-wall contraction were: Filtek Z 250 = 11.33 ± 2.160 μm; Filtek Supreme = 10.66 ± 1.211μm; Admira = 11.16 ± 2.041 μm and Grandio = 10.50 ± 1.224 μm. There were no significant differences among the composite resins obtained with the first (shrinkage stress generated during polymerization) and third method (wall-to-wall shrinkage). The composite resins obtained with the second method (Teflon method) differed significantly regarding gap formation. Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru da Universidade de São Paulo 2008-02 /pmc/articles/PMC4327277/ /pubmed/19089286 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1678-77572008000100007 Text en http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Pereira, Rosana Aparecida
de Araujo, Paulo Amarante
Castañeda-Espinosa, Juan Carlos
Mondelli, Rafael Francisco Lia
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE SHRINKAGE STRESS OF COMPOSITE RESINS
title COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE SHRINKAGE STRESS OF COMPOSITE RESINS
title_full COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE SHRINKAGE STRESS OF COMPOSITE RESINS
title_fullStr COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE SHRINKAGE STRESS OF COMPOSITE RESINS
title_full_unstemmed COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE SHRINKAGE STRESS OF COMPOSITE RESINS
title_short COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE SHRINKAGE STRESS OF COMPOSITE RESINS
title_sort comparative analysis of the shrinkage stress of composite resins
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4327277/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19089286
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1678-77572008000100007
work_keys_str_mv AT pereirarosanaaparecida comparativeanalysisoftheshrinkagestressofcompositeresins
AT dearaujopauloamarante comparativeanalysisoftheshrinkagestressofcompositeresins
AT castanedaespinosajuancarlos comparativeanalysisoftheshrinkagestressofcompositeresins
AT mondellirafaelfranciscolia comparativeanalysisoftheshrinkagestressofcompositeresins