-
d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 0 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 984992
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
jo ur nal ho me pag e: www.int l .e lsev ierhea l th .com/
journa ls /dema
Correlation between polymerization stress andinterfacial
integrity of composites restorationsassessed by different in vitro
tests
Letcia Cristina Cidreira Boaroa,b,, Nvea Regina
Fres-Salgadob,ViniciusAndrea Walter Ga Universidab Universidac
Universida
a r t i c
Article histor
Received 16
Received in
10 Decembe
Accepted 21
Keywords:
Polymerizat
Composites
Bond streng
Marginal ga
CorresponBrazil. Tel.:
E-mail ahttp://dx.do0109-5641/ Edwardo Souza Gajewskib, Aline A.
Bicalhoc,Dolores Correa M. Valdiviac, Carlos Jos Soaresc,omes
Miranda Jniorb, Roberto Ruggiero Bragab
de de Santo Amaro, So Paulo, SP, Brazilde de So Paulo, So Paulo,
SP, Brazilde Federal de Uberlndia, Uberlndia, MG, Brazil
l e i n f o
y:
February 2013
revised form
r 2013
May 2014
ion stress
th
p
a b s t r a c t
Objective. to correlate polymerization stress data obtained
under two compliance conditions
with those from different interfacial quality tests.
Methods. Six commercial composites were tested (Filtek Z250/3M
ESPE, Heliomolar/Ivoclar
Vivadent, Aelite LS Posterior/Bisco, Filtek Supreme/3M ESPE,
ELS/Saremco and Venus Dia-
mond/Heraeus Kulzer). Bond strength (BS) was evaluated by
push-out test on slices of bovine
dentin (2-mm thick) with tapered cavities. For microleakage (ML)
and gap analysis, cylindri-
cal cavities in bovine incisors (4-mm diameter and 1.5-mm
height) were restored and epoxy
replicas of the cavo-surface margins were prepared for analysis
under scanning electron
microscopy (200). The same specimens were submitted to a
microleakage protocol usingAgNO3 as tracer. After sectioned twice
perpendicularly, ML was determined under a stereo-
microscope (60). Polymerization stress (PS, n = 5) was
determined by the insertion of thecomposite (h = 1.5 mm) between
poly(methyl methacrylate), PMMA, or glass rods ( = 4 mm)
attached to a universal testing machine. Data were analyzed
using KruskalWallis (ML and
gaps), and ANOVA/Tukey (BS and PS, = 5%). Pearsons correlation
test was used to verify
correlations between stress and interfacial quality.
Results. BS varied from 4.7 to 7.9 MPa. Average ML data ranged
from 0.34 to 0.89 mm. Maxi-
mum ML varied from 0.61 to 1.34 mm. Gap incidence varied from 13
to 47%. PS ranged from
2.5 to 4.4 MPa in PMMA, and between 2.1 and 8.2 in glass.
Statistically signicant correla-
tions were observed between stress and interfacial quality,
except between BS and PS in
glass. These correlations were stronger when PMMA was used as
bonding substrate.
ding author at: Departamento de Biomateriais e Biologia Oral da
FOUSP, Av. Prof. Lineu Prestes, 2227, So Paulo, SP 05508-000,+55 11
3091 7840x224; fax: +55 11 3091 7840x201.ddresses:
[email protected], [email protected] (L.C.C.
Boaro).i.org/10.1016/j.dental.2014.05.011
2014 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All
rights reserved.
-
d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 0 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 984992 985
Conclusions. PS data obtained using a high compliance testing
system showed a stronger cor-
relation with in vitro interfacial integrity results, compared
to data from a low compliance
system.
tal M
1. Int
According tive sensitivcaries are ocomposite interfacial dites
polymassociated erate stresslead to deb
Several mechanicathe most cand polymor poly(meuniversal
tcontractionduring polyin MPa, byof the
rod.commerciatoactivationassociated correlated tfacial
integincrease prever, no reformation merizationobserved tstress
value
The stuthat stress glass as bosystems coregarding sof the
testirelief the sIn the pastlus of elast[11,12,23,24
Even assextrapolatesystem wouity of comlow complivalues, in
cconditions,mating thenearly imp
teetnce hat c. In rink
us stor mianceed insideerizacial p fotionty, rend ntesti.
Ma
ethtestee a
t (byLS) aals bD-urdimeMA) i (derinkaed ined 1nd ra
Pus
inct-en. Thhe eas seke Bd ca5 mm 2014 Academy of Den
roduction
to clinical studies, drawbacks such as postopera-ity, marginal
discoloration and possibly secondaryften associated with loss of
marginal integrity inrestorations [13]. One of the possible causes
forebonding is polymerization stress. When compos-
erize conned in a cavity preparation, shrinkagewith the
development of modulus of elasticity gen-es in the
tooth/restoration interface, which mayonding [4].research groups
have focused on developing
l tests to quantify polymerization stress [58]. Inommonly used
test, the composite is insertederized between two at surfaces of
glass, metalthyl methacrylate), PMMA, rods attached to anesting
machine [916]. The load cell records the
force exerted by the composite on the substratemerization and
the nominal stress is calculated,
dividing this value by the cross sectional area This method has
been widely used to comparel [17] and experimental composites
[14,18], pho-
methods [19] and to evaluate several factorswith stress
development [16]. Some studies havehe stress values from mechanical
tests with inter-rity, noting that microleakage and cuspal
deectionoportionally with increasing stress [4,20,21].
How-lationship was found between stress and gap
in porcelain inlays [22]. A study evaluating poly- stress as a
function of photoactivation methodshat modulated photoactivation
results in lowers, leading to higher bond strengths [19].dies
mentioned above have in common the factwas determined in low
compliance systems, usingnding substrate for the composite.
However, thempliance has great inuence on ranking materialstress
magnitude [23,24]. The lower the complianceng system, the lower is
its ability to elongate andtress. Consequently, the recorded value
is higher.
few years, bonding substrates with lower modu-icity have been
used polymerization stress testing].uming that data from mechanical
tests cannot bed to the clinic, a question arises regarding whichld
be more closely related to the interfacial qual-
posite restorations. It is possible that the use of
amongdifferebeing tsystemtion shprevioilarly fcomplobtain
Conpolyminterfaand gamerizaintegria secoof the values
2.
Six dimwere SupremcontenAelite materihas TCtional (TEGDmodulgel
shobtainrecordance a
2.1.
Bovinecemenerationuntil tface wLtd., LaTapereand 3.ance testing
systems could overestimate the stressomparison with those found in
high compliance
more akin to the behavior of a prepared tooth. Esti- compliance
of the tooth in a clinical situation isossible. The stiffness of
the dental tissues varies
using cylinThe cav
for 15 s anwater was visibly moiaterials. Published by Elsevier
Ltd. All rights reserved.
h and even in the same tooth there is a substantialin stiffness
between enamel and dentin. But evenomplex, the tooth cannot be
considered as a rigidfact, several studies have shown that
polymeriza-age could lead to tooth deformation [25,26]. In audy,
several commercial composites ranked sim-icroleakage and stress
values obtained in a high
system, but the same did not apply to stress data a low
compliance system [23].ring the above, it is important to verify if
data fromtion stress tests can be correlated with results
fromquality tests, namely, bond strength, microleakagermation. The
null hypothesis was that the poly-
stress values shows no correlation to interfacialgardless of the
system compliance. Additionally,ull hypothesis was tested, stating
the complianceng system did not inuence polymerization stress
terials and methods
acrylate-based commercial composites shade A3d (Table 1). Three
of them (Heliomolar, Filteknd Filtek Z250) were chosen based on
their ller
volume). The other three (Venus Diamond, ELS andre considered as
low shrinkage or low stressy the respective manufacturers. Venus
Diamondethane in its composition, in addition to
conven-thacrylates, while ELS has no diluent monomer
and Aelite LS has a very high ller content. Elastictermined by
three point bending test) and post-ge (determined by the
strain-gage method) were
a previous study, and correspond to the values0 min after
phtoactivation using the same irradi-diant exposure adopted in the
present study [27].
h-out bond strength
isors (n = 15) had their crowns removed at theamel junction with
a diamond disc under refrig-e buccal surface was attened with wet
sandpapernamel was completely removed. The lingual sur-ctioned
using a diamond disc (Isomet 1000, Buehlerluff, IL, USA) to obtain
a slice with 2 mm thickness.vities with 2.9-mm diameter on the
buccal surface
diameter on the lingual surface were prepared
drical and truncated cone diamond burs.ity walls were etched
with 37% phosphoric acidd then rinsed in running water for 15 s.
Excessremoved with short air blasts, leaving the surfacest. Two
layers of an one-bottle adhesive system
-
986 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 0 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 984992
Tabl
e
1
Mat
eria
ls
use
d
in
the
pre
sent
study
, ller
conte
nt
in
volu
me,
aver
age
size
of
ller
par
ticle
and
man
ufa
cture
s.
The
dat
a
of
pos
t-ge
l shrinkag
e
and
elas
tic
mod
ulu
s
acco
rdin
g
to
Boa
ro
[28].
Mat
eria
l(a
bbre
viat
ion)
Filler
conte
nt
(vol
.)Ave
rage
size
ofller
par
ticl
esM
anufa
cture
r
Org
anic
mat
rix
Post
-gel
Shrinka
ge
(%)
Elas
tic
Mod
ulu
s(G
Pa)
Hel
iom
olar
(HM
)
46%
0.04
0.2
m
Ivoc
lar
Viv
aden
t,
Schaa
n, L
iech
tenst
ein
BisGM
A, U
DM
A, D
3M
A
0.43
(0.0
2)
3.1
(0.3
)EL
S
(EL)
a50
%
0.07
2.6
m
Sare
mco
, Roh
nac
ker,
Switze
rlan
d
BisGM
A, B
isEM
A
0.35
(0.0
2)
2.0
(0.2
)Fi
ltek
Supre
me
(SU)
57%
75
nm
1.4
m
3M
ESPE
BisGM
A, B
isEM
A, U
DM
A, T
EGDM
A
0.64
(0.0
7)
6.0
(0.7
)Fi
ltek
Z25
0
(FZ)
60%
0.19
3.3
m
3M
ESPE
BisGM
A, B
isEM
A, U
DM
A, T
EGDM
A
0.52
(0.0
4)
5.6
(0.6
)Ven
us
Dia
mon
d
(VD)a
64%
5
nm
20
m
Her
aus
Kulz
er
Gm
bH, H
anau
, Ale
man
ha
TCD-u
reta
no
0.39
(0.0
3)
4.5
(0.3
)Ael
ite
LS
Post
erio
r
(AE)
a74
%
0.06
m
Bisco
, Sch
ambu
rg, I
L,
EUA
BisGM
A, B
isEM
A, T
EGDM
A
0.51
(0.0
4)
9.3
(0.7
)
aCon
sider
ed
by
thei
r
resp
ectv
ily
man
ufa
cter
as
low
-shrinka
ge
com
pos
ites
.
(Single Bond 2, 3M ESPE) were applied and photoactivatedwith a
radiant exposure of 12 J/cm2 (400 mW/cm2 30 s VIPJr, Bisco, Smylar
tapeAfter insertplaced on ttip was plafrom buccawith a radiaimens
werbuccal and discs (Soft-
For thestainless stmachine (In(buccal surstainless sta
compresscomposite Values in M(N) by the barea was ctruncated c
Bonded are
where = 3h cavity hig
2.2. Mi
Bovine inci#400 grit sato make suby enamel,diameter aall of
themwas the saately after polished wremove comAfter 24 h were
sonicsurfaces wlight consiswith epoxyIL, USA). Afmolds, xein a
scanniunder 200
Ten speselected fo38 and 48 iperimeter ofree marginInstitute
oflength of tmargins, asscale bar ofchaumburg, IL, USA). The tooth
was placed on a over a glass slab, with the buccal surface facing
up.ing the composite in bulk, a second mylar strip washe buccal
surface of the restoration and the curingced in contact therewith,
so the light was directedl to lingual surfaces. The composite was
light curednt exposure of 18 J/cm2 (570 mW/cm2 32 s). Spec-
e stored for 24 h in distilled water at 37 C. Bothlingual
surfaces were slightly ground with nishingLex, 3M ESPE).
push-out test, the specimen was placed on aeel base under the
actuator of a universal testingstron 5565, Canton, MA EUA). The
smallest radius
face) was placed in contact with a 2.5-mm diametereel tip,
connected to the load cell. This tip appliedive force (cross-head
speed: 0.5 mm/min) on thesurface until the rupture of the bonded
interface.Pa were obtained by dividing the maximum forceonded area
of the specimen (in mm2). The bondedalculated by the formula of the
lateral area of theone:
a = [ (R + r)]
h2 + (R r)2
.1416; R larger cavity radius, r smaller cavity radius;h.
croleakage and marginal gap analysis
sors (n = 15) had their buccal surfaces attened withndpaper to
provide an enamel surface large enoughre the cavity margins were
entirely surrounded
and then received cylindrical cavities with 4-mmnd 1.5-mm depth
(C-factor: 2.5, volume: 19 mm3),
with enamel margins. The restorative procedureme as described
for the push-out test. Immedi-polymerization, the restorations were
ground andith silicon carbide sandpaper (grits 6004000) toposite
excess and expose the restoration margins.
storage in distilled water at 37 C, the specimensated for
cleaning the surface. Then, the restoredere molded using an
addition silicone (Express XT,tency, 3M ESPE) and the impressions
were poured
resin (Buhler Epothin, Epoxicure Resin, Lake Bluff,ter 9 h at 37
C, the replicas were separated from thed in metal stubs and coated
with gold for analysisng electron microscope (LEO, AEG-Zeiss,
Germany)
magnication.cimens of each experimental group were randomlyr gap
analysis. Each specimen required betweenmages using 200 magnication
to scan the entiref the restoration. Examples of debonded and gap-s
are shown in Fig. 1. ImageJ software (National
Health, Bethesda, USA) was used to measure thehe debonded
segments at the enamel-composite
well as the entire perimeter of the restoration. The the SEM
images was used for calibration. The value
-
d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 0 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 984992 987
l gap (left) and without gap (right).
obtained inon the tota
After thmen was caround thefor 2 h in thdevelopingunder
uortioned withIsomet, Bularly througtooth substness of thepairs of
adage evaluat60 magnifTokyo, Japapus). The d(in mm)
upenetrationetration wenamel lay
2.3. Pol
Polymerizaconditions,for the comcompliancesegments wof the
surfa(6002000 g3, ATM, Altest light tropposite susandblaste
For the layer of mPolimerizanBrasil), whiPrimer, 3M
bond Multipurpose Plus, bottle 3, 3M ESPE), light-cured radiant
exposure of 12 J/cm2 (400 mW/cm2 30 s). Theere attached to a
universal testing machine (Instron
Thoose was sitesr foltach
specne to
into valuecesnd muideed sung thl 100ratiore o
min Fig. 1 Examples of specimens showing interfacia
millimeters was converted to percentage basedl perimeter of the
interface for each specimen.e silicone impression was obtained,
each speci-oated with nail polish, except in an area of 1 mm
restoration. They were immersed in 50% AgNO3e dark, followed by
a period of 6 h immersion in
solution (Kodak, So Jos dos Campos, SP, Brazil)escent light.
After that, the specimens were sec-
0.3-mm diamond discs under water cooling (1000ehler Ltd., Lake
Bluff, IL, USA) twice perpendicu-h the center of the restoration.
Since some of theance was lost during sectioning (due to the
thick-
diamond disc) eight surfaces (rather than fourjacent surfaces)
were considered for microleak-ion. Images of each surface were
digitized using aying stereomicroscope (model SZ61, Olympus Inc.,n)
equipped with a CCD camera (Q-Color 3, Olym-epth of penetration of
the tracer was measured
sing the ImageJ software, and both the average of the eight
surfaces and the maximum dye pen-
ere recorded. Additionally, the thickness of theer was also
recorded.
ymerization stress
(Scotchwith arods wFig. 2).and ththem wcompocylindewas attor
themachiheight
Theforce nforce alight gpolishreachi(modeand duexposufor 10tion
stress was measured under two compliance dened by the material used
as bonding substrateposite: PMMA (high compliance) and glass (low).
Rods with 4 mm in diameter were sectioned inith 13 or 28 mm in
length. For the 13 mm rods, oneces was polished with silicon
carbide sandpaperrit) and felt disks with alumina paste
(Aluminaenkirchen, Germany) in order to allow the high-ansmission
possible during photoactivation. Therface and both surfaces of the
28 mm rods were
d with aluminum oxide (250 m).PMMA rods, the sandblasted
surfaces received aethyl methacrylate monomer (JET Acrlico Autote,
Artigos Odontolgicos Clssico, So Paulo,
le the glass rods received a layer of silane (Ceramic ESPE),
followed by two layers of unlled resin
Fig. 2 Exptest.se with 13 mm were attached to the lower clampith
28 mm to the upper clamp. The space betweenxed at 1.5 mm (C-Factor:
1.3, volume: 19 mm3). The
were inserted into this space and shaped as alowing the
perimeter of the rods. An extensometered to the rods (model
2630-101, Instron) to moni-imen height and provide a feedback to
the testing
move the actuator in order to keep the specimen a minimum
range.e registered by the load cell corresponded to thesary to
counteract the polymerization shrinkageaintain the specimens
initial height. The tip of the
(VIP Jr, Bisco) was positioned in contact with therface of the
13 mm rod. The irradiance effectivelye composite was determined
using a radiometer, Demetron Res. Corp., Orange, California, EUA)n
of the exposure was adjusted to obtain a radiantf 18 J/cm2. Force
development was monitoredfrom the beginning of photoactivation and
theerimental set up of the polymerization stress
-
988 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 0 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 984992
Table 2 Means (standard deviation) for bond strength,
microleakage, gap and polymerization stress (obtained usingPMMA or
glass as bonding substrate). In the same column, means followed by
the same letter are statistically similar(one-way ess data, in the
same row means followed by thesame low lis/ANOVA, p > 0.05).
Compo kage (mm) Polymerization stress (MPa)
Maximum High compliance Low compliance
Filtek Supr 1.34 (0.21)A 3.5 (0.3)A,b 8.2 (0.6)A,a
Aelite LS P B 1.22 (0.28)A 3.4 (0.5)AB,b 5.0 (0.8)B,a
Filtek Z250 C 1.10 (0.34)AB 2.9 (0.3)ABC,b 5.1 (0.4)B,a
Venus Diam D 0.85 (0.27)BC 2.7 (0.4)BC,a 3.7 (0.3)C,a
Heliomolar CD 0.71 (0.28) C 2.6 (0.6)BC,a 3.3 (0.5) C,a
ELS 0.73 (0.38)C 2.5 (0.3)C,a 2.1 (0.1)D,a
maximum maximum rods (n = 5).
2.4. Sta
PolymerizaANOVA (cMicroleakaKruskalWtests, the p
Pearsontically sign(in both sumicroleakatistically
sigcoefcient)(six) and glyses involvdetermine
3. Re
Means andysis for bonmarginal gTable 2.
For bonbetween thand Aelite (ranged fromand four microleakaage
and masubsets fofor maximbetween 0.respectivel0.89 mm (E
For polybetween c(p < 0.001). est stress v2.1 MPa) anance:
3.5 MVenus Diam
h compliance levels, while Filtek Supreme, Aelite LS andZ250
presented statistically higher stress values in thempliance
system.le 3 presents the Pearsons correlation coefcients (r)n ppend
mianceed wtren
prenterfly himpl. Th
Di
sted(on be). F
thosted ticrolsitesel shater
intern broted
3 ANOVA/KruskalWallis, p > 0.05). For the polymerization
strer case letter are statistically similar (two-way KruskalWal
site Bond strength (MPa) Marginal gap (%) Microlea
Average
eme 5.1 (2.1)B 47 (5)A 0.89 (0.18)A
osterior 4.7 (2.0)B 42 (6)A 0.78 (0.18)A
6.8 (2.7)AB 27 (4)B 0.62 (0.20)B
ond 7.1 (2.1)AB 13 (3)D 0.45 (0.12)C
6.4 (1.6)AB 20 (5)C 0.44 (0.12)7.9 (3.2)A 21 (7)BC 0.35
(0.14)D
nominal stress was calculated by dividing theforce value
recorded by the cross-section of the
tistical analysis
tion stress data were analyzed using two-wayomposite and
compliance) and Tukey test.ge and marginal gap were analyzed
usingallis due to the lack of homocedasticity. In bothre-set global
signicance level was 5%.s tests were used to verify the presence of
statis-icant correlations between polymerization stressbstrates,
glass and PMMA) and bond strength,ge or marginal gaps. In order to
be considered sta-nicant, the critical r value (Pearsons
correlation
was 0.811, according to the number of data pairsobal signicance
level of 5% [28]. Regression anal-ing the same variables were also
performed tothe equations for the regression curves.
sults
standard deviations, as well as the statistical anal-d strength,
microleakage (maximum and average),ap and polymerization stress
data are shown in
d strength, the only signicant differences weree ELS (7.9 MPa)
and both Filtek Supreme (5.1 MPa)4.7 MPa). The percentage of
marginal gap incidence
13% (Venus Diamond) to 47% (Filtek Supreme),statistical subsets
were observed. Regardingge, composites showed the same ordering for
aver-ximum values. However, there were four statistical
on botFiltek low co
Tabbetweeand deage ancomplobtainbond ssystemthree isistentlow
cosystemFig. 3.
4.
The testress averagilar topresenand mcompopost-geral, mbetter
Also, ipresen
Table
r average microleakage and only three subsetsum microleakage.
Maximum microleakage varied71 and 1.34 mm (Heliomolar and Filtek
Supreme,y). Average microleakage ranged between 0.35 andLS and
Filtek Supreme, respectively).merization stress data, a signicant
interactionomposite and compliance level was observedOn both
compliance levels, ELS showed the low-alues (high compliance: 2.5
MPa; low compliance:d Filtek Supreme, the highest stress (high
compli-Pa; low compliance: 8.2 MPa). ELS, Heliomolar andond
presented statistically similar stress values
analyses number othan 0.81
Bond strenMicroleaka
average maximu
Marginal g
Non-signolymerization stress (for both compliance levels)dent
variables, namely, bond strength, microleak-arginal gap. For stress
data obtained in the low
system, statistically signicant correlations wereith
microleakage and marginal gap, but not withgth. Stress data
obtained in the high compliancesented statistically signicant
correlations with theacial quality tests. Moreover, the r-values
were con-gher for correlations involving stress data from theiance
system, compared to the high compliancee results of the regression
analyses are shown in
scussion
composites ranked similarly for polymerizationoth substrates)
and microleakage (maximum andor marginal gap, the ranking was also
quite sim-e tests, except for the fact that Venus Diamondhe lowest
gap percentage and intermediate stresseakage. Bond strength,
however, ranked the tested
in a slightly different order. Based on materialsrinkage and
elastic modulus values [10], in gen-ials presenting lower post-gel
shrinkage showedfacial integrity, regardless of their elastic
modulus.ad terms, materials with low post-gel shrinkage
low stress values for both compliance conditions.
Pearson correlation coefcient (r) for the
presented in this study. Considering thef data pairs analyzed
(six), r-values higher1 are statistically signicant.
Polymerization stress
High compliance Low compliance
gth 0.910 0.744*ge
0.993 0.934m 0.942 0.889ap 0.932 0.817
icant, p > 0.05.
-
d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 0 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 984992 989
00,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0A
Ave
rage
mic
role
akag
e (m
m) SUSU
y= r=0
0 10
20
30
40
50
Gap
(%)
y=r=0
02
4
6
8
10
Bon
d S
treng
th (M
Pa)
y=r=
Fig. 3 Regboth compmarginal g
However, amodulus ca
Bond stbetween thof the adheingly, the minuences test that
dibonded intthe walls ofound in th
than those found with shear and tensile tests. Therefore,
thereis a higher probability of incorporating relatively large
defects
adhesult descncese. T
exhus. A
tha) ass
testts th2 4 6 8 10
high compliance low complian ce
EL EL
HM
VDHM VD
FZFZ
y=0,095x + 0,156r=0,934
AEAE
0,498x -0,860 ,993
in the may re
As differeSuprempositesmodulshows(0.35%all
thepresenPolymerization Stress (MPa)
2 4 6 8 10
B
HM high co mplian ce lo w co mplian ce
Polymeriza tion Stress (MPa )
VDVD
HM
ELEL
FZFZ
29,33x - 56,956 ,932
AE
SU
AE
SU
y= 5,20x + 4,59 1r=0,817
2 4 6 8 10
high compliance low compl ian ce
Polymeriz ation Stres s (M Pa)
EL EL
HM
VD
HM
VDFZ
FZ
y= -0.432 x + 8.30 6r= -0.74 4
SUAE
SUAE
-2.61 x + 13.93 1 -0.91 0
C
ression analysis of polymerization stress forliance levels and
average microleakage (A);aps (B); and bond strength (C).
s it will be discussed below, the inuence of elasticnnot be
disregarded.rength values reect the complex interactione bonding
substrate and the mechanical propertiessive system and the
composite and, not surpris-ethod used to evaluate bond strength
signicantlythe results [29]. The main aspect of the
push-outfferentiates it from tensile and shear tests in aterfaces
is the connement of the composite withinf the prepared cavity, more
akin to the conditionse clinic. The bonded area in the push-out is
larger
atively highshowed themediate mcompositesmanufactusimilar to
t
Composcult to nd in vivo anthat gap inicant correin vivo
andlaboratory percentageHeliomolarlow post-gebeen reportpost-gel
sh[27], whichof gap form
The masemi-quanto the maxIn the presewas also esive
analysMaximum entiate therelatively hof the interthe eight sufound.
Theused to quent resultslimitationsused (bovinless of thein dentin
tthe formersevere scruanalysis waof the resul
The ave0.55 0.29 mtistically siminuenced Heliomolarsive layer
during the specimen preparation, whichin lower bond strength values
[30].ribed previously, the only statistically signicant
were found between ELS and Aelite LS/Filtekhis nding may be
explained because these com-ibit extreme values of post-gel
shrinkage ands shown in Table 1, data from a previous studyt ELS
presented the lowest post-gel shrinkageociated with the lowest
modulus (2.0 GPa) amonged composites [27]. On the other hand,
Aelite LSe highest modulus (9.3 GPa) associated with a rel-
post-gel shrinkage (0.51%), while Filtek Supreme highest
shrinkage (0.64%) associated with an inter-odulus (6.0 GPa). It is
important to notice that the
considered as low shrinkage by the respectiverers presented bond
strength values statisticallyhe conventional composites.ite
restorations free of marginal gaps are very dif-clinically [31,32].
A study evaluating gap formationd in vitro for ve different
composites observedcidence was always higher in vivo, and a
signif-lation could be found between the data obtained
in vitro [32], which increases the relevance ofevaluations.
Venus Diamond showed the lowest
of marginal gaps, statistically similar to ELS and. This lower
gap formation may be ascribed to thel shrinkage of these
composites, and has alreadyed for Venus Diamond [33,34]. Aelite LS
presentedrinkage similar to Filtek Supreme and Filtek Z250
could explain the statistically similar percentageation for
these composites.jority of studies that evaluated microleakage
usedtitative methods (scores) or limited their analysisimum tracer
penetration in each specimen [35,36].nt study, the mean
microleakage of each specimenvaluated in order to obtain a more
comprehen-is of what occurs at the tooth/restoration
interface.microleakage presented a lower ability to differ-
materials; in other words, all materials presentedigh dye
penetration in at least one of the eight areasface inspected.
However, when the microleakage ofrfaces was averaged, more
statistical subsets werese ndings suggest that depending on the
criteriaantify microleakage, it is possible to have differ-
for the same group of materials. Besides those, microleakage is
dependent on the type of teethe or human), and even in the same
tooth, regard-
adhesive system, there are more microleakagehan in enamel, due
to the higher permeability of
[37]. Though microleakage tests have been undertiny, in the
present study a more comprehensives undertaken, trying to increase
the consistencyts.rage enamel thickness of the restored cavities
was
m. Table 4 shows that enamel thickness was sta-ilar for all
groups, so the dye penetration was not
by this factor. As an average, for Venus Diamond, and ELS, most
of the dye penetration was restricted
-
990 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 0 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 984992
Tabl
e
4
Mea
ns
(sta
ndar
d
dev
iation
),
min
imum
and
max
imum
valu
es
for
enam
el
thicknes
s
consider
ing
all t
he
analyz
ed
surfac
es, a
nd
for
thos
e
surfac
es
pre
senting
micro
leak
age
reac
hin
g
beyo
nd
the
enam
el-d
entin
junctio
n
(DEJ
) or
restricted
to
enam
el. A
lso,
the
num
ber
of
surfac
es
pre
senting
micro
leak
age
restricted
to
enam
el
orbo
th
enam
el
and
den
tin
are
show
n. D
istrib
ution
of
surfac
es
pre
senting
micro
leak
age
for
each
spec
imen
(too
th) i
s
pre
sente
d
also
.
Com
pos
ite
Enam
el
thickn
ess
(mm
)*Su
rfac
es
pre
senting
mic
role
akag
e**
Spec
imen
s
pre
senting
mic
role
akag
e
in
(surfac
es)
Ave
rage
Min
imum
Max
imum
Dye
pen
etra
tion
beyo
nd
DEJ
***
Dye
pen
etra
tion
rest
rict
ed
toen
amel
***
Onl
y
inen
amel
Enam
el
and
den
tin
4
or
less
5
6 7
8
Filtek
Supre
me
0.47
(0.2
2)0.
15
0.70
0.55
(0.1
3)
0.40
(0.2
7)
41
79
2
13Ael
ite
LS
Post
erio
r0.
51
(0.1
6)
0.31
0.74
0.47
(0.0
9)
0.55
(0.2
0)
48
72
1
1
13Fi
ltek
Z25
00.
80
(0.4
7)0.
17
1.40
0.67
(0.2
2)
0.88
(0.5
9)
70
50
1
14Ven
us
Dia
mon
d0.
43
(0.2
1)
0.13
0.79
0.42
(0.1
2)
0.44
(0.3
1)
98
22
3
12Hel
iom
olar
0.60
(0.2
6)0.
27
1.00
0.55
(0.1
2)
0.62
(0.3
1)
101
19
1
1
4
9EL
S
0.50
(0.2
6)
0.13
0.98
0.40
(0.0
8)
0.55
(0.3
6)
106
14
3
3
9
Ave
rage
enam
el
thickn
ess
for
the
entire
sam
ple
(n
=
720)
: 0.5
5
(0.2
9)
mm
.
For
each
com
pos
ite,
a
tota
l of
120
surfac
es
was
anal
yzed
(n
=
15, e
ach
spec
imen
with
8
surfac
es).
Ther
e
are
no
stat
istica
l diffe
rence
s
for
the
colu
mn
(ANOVA/o
ne-
way
) or
row
(Stu
den
ts
t
test
) for
the
enam
el
thickn
ess.
to the enamel. As mentioned for bond strength, the lowshrinkage
composites showed microleakage values statisti-cally
similapresented hand shrinklar to Filtekshrinkage oresulted inwith
greatesubset alon
It mustsent two dwell knownpared to dethat increainterface,
asequently,
Low shstress valuites. VenusHeliomolarible monommonomer. which
assostress devethat the remond and The degreetek Z250,
wconversion
Polymerfore, valuesThe testinand dimencomposite obtained vatem
was chwere higheFiltek SuprHeliomolarthe lower tthe stress can be
explcompositesbonding sulower value
Coincidals chosen shrinkage example, th(Filtek Supage, and
vimodulus (Eexplains thstress, regalar rankingbetween
stcompliancelation coefcorrelationr to conventional materials.
Aelite LS, for example,igh microleakage probably due to its high
modulus
age. Venus Diamond presented microleakage simi- Z250. It is
possible to assume that, despite the lowf Venus Diamond, its
intermediate elastic modulus
a microleakage statistically similar to compositesr shrinkage.
ELS stayed on the lower microleakageg with Heliomolar and Venus
Diamond.
be pointed out that dentin and enamel repre-ifferent behaviors
in terms of compliance. It is
that adhesion to enamel is more reliable com-ntin, but enamel
has a higher elastic modulus, andses stress concentration at the
enamel-composites already has been demonstrated [3840], and,
con-the risk of gap formation and microleakage.rinkage composites
presented polymerizationes statistically similar to conventional
compos-
Diamond and ELS were statistically similar to and Filtek Z250.
Venus Diamond contains a ex-er (TCD-urethane), whereas ELS has no
diluent
These features resulted in low elastic modulus,ciated with low
post-gel shrinkage reduced theloped by these composites. It is
interesting to noticelatively low modulus and shrinkage of Venus
Dia-ELS are not due to a lower degree of conversion.
of conversion of these composites is similar to Fil-hile
Heliomolar has a relatively lower degree of
. [41].ization stress is not a material property, and there-
vary depending on the testing system used [42,43].g device,
bonding substrate, specimen geometrysions, and the adhesive system
used to bond theto the substrate may signicantly inuence thelue. In
this study, the stiffness of the testing sys-anged only by varying
the substrate. Stress valuesr with the stiffer substrate (glass)
for Aelite LS,eme and Filtek Z250 but not for Venus Diamond,
and ELS. In a previous study, it was observed thathe elastic
modulus of the composite, the closer arevalues obtained in
different substrates [23]. Thatained by the fact that in high
compliance systems,
with relatively high elastic modulus deform thebstrate in the
radial direction, which results in a
registered by the load cell [43].entally, except for Aelite LS,
the other ve materi-for this study show a direct relationship
betweenand elastic modulus (R2 = 0.72; y = 0.06x + 0.22). Fore
material presenting the highest elastic modulus
reme) also presented the highest post-gel shrink-ce versa: the
material presenting the lowest elasticLS) presented the lowest
post-gel shrinkage. Thise similar ranking of the materials in terms
ofrdless of the system compliance [43]. The simi-
on both systems justify the correlations obtainedress and
microleakage or gap for both levels of. However, bond strength
showed the lowest corre-cient with stress obtained in PMMA and
showed no
with the stress obtained in glass. One aspect
-
d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 0 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 984992 991
that differentiates the push-out specimen from the one usedfor
microleakage and marginal gap evaluation is that in theformer there
was no enamel margins and, therefore, bondingoccurred enBesides,
intstress geneby polymereffect.
The ndifferent cmerization(PMMA) areof bonded higher thanlow
complimechanicathis ndinga highly rigresponse to
In conclmerizationcan be relastress datacorrelationsystem for a
signican
Acknowle
The authorprovided by
r e f e r e n
[1] Hilton reliablyDent 20
[2] Brunthof direcOral In
[3] Manhaa case 2004;23
[4] Ferracacontrac2003;16
[5] Feilzer comporestora
[6] Watts Dshrinkadevelop
[7] Lu H, Sshrinkacompo97986
[8] Sakaguanalysishrinka2004;20
[9] Alster D, Feilzer AJ, de Gee AJ, Davidson CL.
Polymerizationcontraction stress in thin resin composite layers as
afunctio
ster Dmplintracomatartompoode. arto
scosiress int Mndonrmul00;13ncal. Inress d10;26aga
Rvelopsin-c05;21itzel mpomensater 2lheirtweestorancal
comnharracaethodnverstoralheirlymempostorae SY,lyme06;31aga
Rntracterfa02;30aro Lbstrata Bincal. Pol
systeemind miling mlues.lin W
vitroemolmpoaro L
Bragodulunt Mtirely on dentin, a more heterogeneous
substrate.erfacial debonding is the result of the mechanicalrated
by an external load and, though inuencedization stress, it is not a
direct consequence of its
dings of the present study suggest that whenompliance levels are
compared, composite poly-
stress data generated in a high compliance system more strongly
related to the interfacial qualityrestorations, as the correlation
coefcients were
those obtained with stress data obtained from aance system.
Though direct comparisons betweenl tests and the clinical situation
should be avoided,
is likely a reection of the fact that the tooth is notid
substrate, demonstrating a high deformability in
polymerization shrinkage [40,44].usion, for the group of
materials evaluated, poly-
stress values obtained at both compliance levelsted to
interfacial quality in vitro. Nevertheless,
from the high compliance system showed higher coefcients than
data from the low compliancemicroleakage and marginal gap
formation, besidest correlation with bond strength values.
dgement
s would like to acknowledge the nancial support FAPESP
(2008/54456-7).
c e s
TJ. Can modern restorative procedures and materials seal
cavities? In vitro investigations. Part 1. Am J02;15(3):198210.aler
A, Konig F, Lucas T, Sperr W, Schedle A. Longevityt resin composite
restorations in posterior teeth. Clinvestig 2003;7(2):6370.rt J.
Direct composite restorations in posterior region:history using a
nanohybrid composite. Dent Today(11):66, 6870.ne JL, Mitchem JC.
Relationship between compositetion stress and leakage in Class V
cavities. Am J Dent(4):23943.AJ, De Gee AJ, Davidson CL. Setting
stress insite resin in relation to conguration of thetion. J Dent
Res 1987;66(11):16369.C, Marouf AS, Al-Hindi AM.
Photo-polymerizationge-stress kinetics in resin-composites:
methodsment. Dent Mater 2003;19(1):111.tansbury JW, Bowman CN.
Towards the elucidation ofge stress development and relaxation in
dentalsites. Dent Mater 2004;20(10):.chi RL, Wiltbank BD, Shah NC.
Critical congurations of four methods for measuring
polymerizationge strain of composites. Dent Mater(4):38896.
[10] AlcocoBi
[11] Chcom
[12] ChvistDe
[13] Cofo20
[14] GoRRst20
[15] Brdere20
[16] WCodiM
[17] Cabere
[18] Goto
[19] CuFemcore
[20] CaPocore
[21] Lepo20
[22] Brcoin20
[23] BosuAc
[24] GoRRof
[25] Flanlva
[26] PaInprco
[27] BoA,mDen of layer thickness. Dent Mater 1997;13(3):14650.,
Venhoven BA, Feilzer AJ, Davidson CL. Inuence of
ance of the substrate materials on polymerizationtion stress in
thin resin composite layers.erials 1997;18(4):33741.n C, Colon P,
Pla F. Shrinkage stress in light-curedsite resins: inuence of
material and photoactivationDent Mater 2007;23(8):91120.n C, Falk
V, Marchal P, Pla F, Colon P. Inuence of Tg,ty and chemical
structure of monomers on shrinkagen light-cured
dimethacrylate-based dental resins.ater 2007;23(11):144759.
JR, Ferracane JL. Assessing the effect of compositeation on
polymerization stress. J Am Dent Assoc1(4):497503.ves F, Pfeifer
CC, Stansbury JW, Newman SM, Bragauence of matrix composition on
polymerizationevelopment of experimental composites. Dent
Mater(7):697703.R, Ballester RY, Ferracane JL. Factors involved in
thement of polymerization shrinkage stress in
omposites: a systematic review. Dent Mater(10):96270.MF,
Ballester RY, Meira JB, Lima RG, Braga RR.site shrinkage stress as
a function of specimenions and compliance of the testing system.
Dent007;23(2):20410.os FC, Braga RR, Kawano Y, Ballester RY.
Relationshipn contraction stress and degree of conversion intive
composites. Dent Mater 2004;20(10):93946.ves F, Kawano Y, Braga RR.
Contraction stress relatedposite inorganic content. Dent Mater
2010;26(7):7049.
LG, Alonso RC, Pfeifer CS, Correr-Sobrinho L,ne JL, Sinhoreti
MA. Modulated photoactivations: Inuence on contraction stress,
degree of
sion and push-out bond strength of compositetives. J Dent
2007;35(4):31824.os FC, Sadek FT, Braga RR, Cardoso PE.rization
contraction stress of low-shrinkagesites and its correlation with
microleakage in class Vtions. J Dent 2004;32(5):40712.
Park SH. Correlation between the amount of linearrization
shrinkage and cuspal deection. Oper Dent(3):36470.R, Ferracane JL,
Condon JR. Polymerizationtion stress in dual-cure cements and its
effect oncial integrity of bonded inlays. J Dent(78):33340.C,
Goncalves F, Braga RR. Inuence of the bondingte in dental composite
polymerization stress testing.omater 2010;6(2):54751.ves F, Pfeifer
CS, Meira JB, Ballester RY, Lima RG, Bragaymerization stress of
resin composites as a functionm compliance. Dent Mater
2008;24(5):64552.g GJ, Hall DP, Shortall AC, Burke FJ. Cuspal
movementcroleakage in premolar teeth restored with
posterioraterials of varying reported volumetric shrinkage
J Dent 2005;33(2):13946.M, Fleming GJ, Nathwani H, Burke FJ,
Randall RC.
cuspal deection and microleakage of maxillaryars restored with
novel low-shrink dentalsites. Dent Mater 2005;21(4):32435.C,
Goncalves F, Guimaraes TC, Ferracane JL, Versluisa RR.
Polymerization stress, shrinkage and elastics of current
low-shrinkage restorative composites.ater 2010;26(12):114450.
-
992 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 0 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 984992
[28] Triola MF. Intriduco a Estatstica. 9a edico LTC; 1999.[29]
Cardoso PE, Braga RR, Carrilho MR. Evaluation of
micro-tensile, shear and tensile tests determining the
bondstrength of three adhesive systems. Dent
Mater1998;14(6):3948.
[30] Pashley DH, Ciucchi B, Sano H, Carvalho RM, Russell CM.Bond
strength versus dentine structure: a modellingapproach. Arch Oral
Biol 1995;40(12):110918.
[31] Opdam NJ, Roeters FJ, Feilzer AJ, Verdonschot EH.
Marginalintegrity and postoperative sensitivity in Class 2
resincomposite restorations in vivo. J Dent 1998;26(7):55562.
[32] Hannig M, Friedrichs C. Comparative in vivo and in
vitroinvestigation of interfacial bond variability. Oper
Dent2001;26(1):311.
[33] Takahashi H, Finger WJ, Wegner K, Utterodt A, Komatsu
M,Wostmann B, et al. Factors inuencing marginal cavityadaptation of
nanoller containing resin compositerestorations. Dent Mater
2010;26(12):116675.
[34] Kurokawa R, Finger WJ, Hoffmann M, Endo T, Kanehira
M,Komatsu M, et al. Interactions of self-etch adhesives withresin
composites. J Dent 2007;35(12):9239.
[35] Ateyah NZ, Elhejazi AA. Shear bond strengths
andmicroleakage of four types of dentin adhesive materials.
JContemp Dent Pract 2004;5(1):6373.
[36] Santini A, Ivanovic V, Ibbetson R, Milia E. Inuence of
cavityconguration on microleakage around Class V restorations
bonded with seven self-etching adhesives. J Esthet RestorDent
2004;16(2):12835 [discussion 136].
[37] Heintze SD. Clinical relevance of tests on bond
strength,microleakage and marginal adaptation. Dent
Mater2013;29(1):5984.
[38] Ausiello P, Apicella A, Davidson CL, Rengo S.
3D-niteelement analyses of cusp movements in a human upperpremolar,
restored with adhesive resin-based composites. JBiomech
2001;34(10):126977.
[39] Rodrigues FP, Silikas N, Watts DC, Ballester RY.
Finiteelement analysis of bonded model Class I restorations
aftershrinkage. Dent Mater 2012;28(2):12332.
[40] Tantbirojn D, Versluis A, Pintado MR, DeLong R, DouglasWH.
Tooth deformation patterns in molars after compositerestoration.
Dent Mater 2004;20(6):53542.
[41] Boaro LC, Versluis A, Braga RR. Degree of conversion
andpost-gel shrinkage of low shrinkage composites. J Dent
Res2010;89(B).
[42] Tantbirojn D, Pfeifer CS, Braga RR, Versluis A. Do
low-shrinkcomposites reduce polymerization shrinkage effects? J
DentRes 2011;90(5):596601.
[43] Meira JB, Braga RR, Ballester RY, Tanaka CB, Versluis
A.Understanding contradictory data in contraction stresstests. J
Dent Res 2011;90(3):36570.
[44] Versluis A, Tantbirojn D, Pintado MR, DeLong R, DouglasWH.
Residual shrinkage stress distributions in molars aftercomposite
restoration. Dent Mater 2004;20(6):55464.
Correlation between polymerization stress and interfacial
integrity of composites restorations assessed by different in vitro
tests