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,...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |