A study of contraction shrinkage of composite resins and ormocers with various curing times

Yeon-Chung Chung; Kyung-San Min; Hae-Hyoung Lee; Kyung-Mo Cho; Yong-Bum Cho

doi:10.5395/JKACD.2003.28.4.326

Journal List > J Korean Acad Conserv Dent > v.28(4) > 1056063

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Chung, Min, Lee, Cho, and Cho: A study of contraction shrinkage of composite resins and ormocers with various curing times

Original Article

Journal of Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry

Journal of Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry 2003; 28(4): 326-333.

Published online: 31 July 2003

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2003.28.4.326

A study of contraction shrinkage of composite resins and ormocers with various curing times

Yeon-Chung Chung, Kyung-San Min, Hae-Hyoung Lee, Kyung-Mo Cho, Yong-Bum Cho

Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Dankook University, Korea.

Corresponding author (raindrop@dku.edu)

(open-access):

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Ormocer has organic-inorganic compound polymers. One of advantages of ormocer is reduced polymerization shrinkage. The purpose of this study was to compare the amount of contraction shrinkage of composite resins and ormocers. Additionally, the time of each material when there is no further change of contraction shrinkage was analysed.

Four brands of composite resins (P-60, Surefil, Z-250 and Denfil) and two brands of ormocers (Definite and Admira) were used. 20 seconds, 40 seconds and 60 seconds of curing times were given. Contraction shrinkage of them were measured using a linometer for 80 seconds.

The effect of material and curing time to contraction shrinkage at the time of 80 seconds was analysed by two-way ANOVA. The effect of time to contraction shrinkage was analysed by one-way ANOVA, and the time when there was no further change of the contraction shrinkage was analysed. The results are as follows :

P-60, Definite, Z-250 and Denfil had no further change of contraction shrinkage from the time of 20 seconds, and Surefil and Admira had no further change of contraction shrinkage from the time of 10 seconds.
Statistical analysis revealed volumetric shrinkage varied among material (p<0.05). No significant difference of contraction shrinkage among different curing times was found, and there was no effect of interaction between materials and curing times to contraction shrinkage.
Definite and Admira showed the statistically same contraction shrinkage with those of Z-250 and P-60, which is higher than that of Surefil and lower than that of Denfil (p<0.05).

Keywords: Ormocer, Linometer, Definite, Admira

Figures and Tables

Fig. 1

Diagram of Linometer

Fig. 2

Volumetric Contraction Shrinkage at Curing Time of 20 Seconds

Fig. 3

Volumetric Contraction Shrinkage at Curing Time of 40 Seconds

Fig. 4

Volumetric Conrtaction Shrinkage at Curing Time of 60 Seconds

Fig. 5

Volumetric Contraction Shrinkage of Various materials Regardless of Curing Times

Table 1

Experiment Materials

Table 2

Volumetric Contraction shrinkage after 80 Seconds with Various Curing Times

(%)

Table 3

Variance Analysis of Volumetric Contraction Shrinkage after 80 Seconds with Various Curing Times

Table 4

95% Scheffe Test of Volumetric Contraction Shrinkage of Various Materials (p<.05)

Table 5

Volumetric Contraction Shirinkage of Various Materials with Time (Standard Deviation) (%)

References

1. Sakaguchi RL, Peters MCRB, Nelson SR, Douglas W, Poort HW. Effects of polmerization contraction in composite restorations. J Dent. 1992. 20:178–182.

2. Attin T, Buchalla W, Kielbassa AM, Helwig E. Curing shrinkage and volumetric changes of resin-modified glass ionomer restorative materials. Dent Mater. 1995. 11:359–362.

3. Tobolsky AV, Leonard R, Roexer GP. Use of polymerizable ring compounds in constant volume polymerizations. J Polym Sci. 1948. 3:604–611.

4. Feilzer AJ, De Gee AJ, Davidson CL. Curing contraction of composites and glassionomer cements. J Prosthet Dent. 1988. 59:297–300.

5. Carvalho RM, Pereira JC, Yoshiyama M, Pashley DH. A review of polymerization contraction The influence of stress development versus stress relief. Oper Dent. 1996. 21:17–24.

6. Suliman AA, Boyer DB, Lakes RS. Cusp movement in premolars resulting from composite polymerization shrinkage. Dent Mater. 1993. 9:6–10.

7. Hickma J, Jacobsen PH. Finite element analysis of dental polymeric restorations. Clin Mater. 1991. 7:39–46.

8. Degussa dental research technical manual of Definite. 1998. 09. Unpublished paper.

9. Iga M, Takeshige F, Ui T, Torii M, Tsuchitani Y. The relationship between polymerization shrinkage and the inorganic filler content of light-cured coomposites. Dent Mater J. 1991. 10:38–45.

10. Bandyopadhyay S. A study of the volumetric setting shrinkage of some dental materials. J Biomed Mater Res. 1982. 16:135–144.

11. Hay JN, Shortall AC. Polymerization contraction and reaction kinetics of three chemically activated restorative resins. J Dent. 1988. 16:172–176.

12. Patel MP, Braden M, Davy KWM. Polymerization shrinkage of methacrylate esters. Biomaterials. 1987. 8:53–79.

13. Watts DC, Cash AJ. Determination of polymerization shrinkage kinetics in visible-light-cured materials: methods development. Dent Mater. 1991. 10. 7:281–287.

14. de Gee AF, Feilzer AJ, Davidson CL. True linear polymerization shrinkage of unfilled resins and composites determined with a linometer. Dent Mater. 1993. 9:11–14.

15. Smith DL, Schoonover IG. Direct filling resins dimensional changes resulting from polymerization shrinkage and water sorption. J Am Dent Assoc. 1953. 46:540–544.

16. Feilzer AJ, de Gee AJ, Davidson CL. Increased wall to wall curing contraction in thin bonded resin layers. J Dent Res. 1989. 68:48–50.

17. Park SH, Krejci I, Lutz F. Microhardness of resin composites polymerized by plasma arc or conventional visible light curing. Oper Dent. 2002. 27:30–37.

18. Miki IGA, Fimio T, Takashi U, Mitsuo Y, Yasushiko T. The relationship between polymerization shrinkage measured by a modified dilatometer and the inorganic filler content of light-cured composites. Dent Mater J. 1991. 10(1):38–45.

19. Dauvillier BS, Aarnts M, Feilzer AJ. Developments in shrinkage control of adhesive restoratives. J Esthet Dent. 2000. 12:291–299.

20. Venhoven BA, de Gee AJ, Davidson CL. Polymerization contraction and conversion of light-curing Bis-GMA based methacrylate resins. Biomaterials. 1993. 14:871–875.

21. Miyazaki M, Hinoura K, Onose H, Moore BK. Effect of filler content of light-cured composites on bond strength to bovine dentine. J Dent. 1991. 19:301–303.

22. Asmussen E. Composite restorative resins. Composition versus wall to wall polymerization contraction. Acta Odontol Scand. 1975. 33:337–344.

23. Perry R, Kugel G, Leinfelder K. One year clinical evaluation of Surefil packable composite. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 1999. 06. 20(6):544–550. 552–553.

24. Chen HY, Manhart J, Hickel R, Kunzelmann KH. Polymerization contraction stress in light-cured packable composite resins. Dent Mater. 2001. 17:253–259.

25. Freedman G. Condensable composites: the new paradigm in amalgam alternatives. Dent Today. 1998. 17(10):72–74.

26. Davidson CL, de Gee AJ. Relaxation of polymerization contraction stresses by flow in dental composites. J Dent Res. 1984. 63:146–148.

27. Koran P, Kurschner R. Effect of sequential versus continuous irradiation of a light-cured resin composite on shrinkage, viscosity, adhesion and degree of polymerization. Am J Dent. 1998. 11:17–22.

28. Dennison J, Yaman P, Seir R, Hamilton J. Effect of variable light intensity on composite shrinkage. J Prosthet Dent. 2000. 84:499–505.

29. Davidson CL, Feilzer AJ. Polymerization shrinkage and polymerization shrinkage stress in polymer-base restoratives. J Dent. 1997. 25:435–440.

TOOLS

Similar articles