Shrinkage vectors in flowable bulk-fill and conventional composites: bulk versus incremental application

Objectives Sufficient depth of cure allows bulk-fill composites to be placed with a 4-mm thickness. This study investigated bulk versus incremental application methods by visualizing shrinkage vectors in flowable bulk-fill and conventional composites. Materials and methods Cylindrical cavities (diam...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Clinical oral investigations 2021-03, Vol.25 (3), p.1127-1139
Hauptverfasser: Kaisarly, Dalia, El Gezawi, Moataz, Keßler, Andreas, Rösch, Peter, Kunzelmann, Karl-Heinz
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Objectives Sufficient depth of cure allows bulk-fill composites to be placed with a 4-mm thickness. This study investigated bulk versus incremental application methods by visualizing shrinkage vectors in flowable bulk-fill and conventional composites. Materials and methods Cylindrical cavities (diameter = 6 mm, depth = 4 mm) were prepared in 24 teeth and then etched and bonded with OptiBond FL (Kerr, Italy). The composites were mixed with 2 wt% radiolucent glass beads. In one group, smart dentin replacement (SDR, Dentsply) was applied in bulk “SDR-bulk” ( n  = 8). In two groups, SDR and Tetric EvoFlow (Ivoclar Vivadent) were applied in two 2-mm-thick increments: “SDR-incremental” and “EvoFlow-incremental.” Each material application was scanned with a micro-CT before and after light-curing (40 s, 1100 mW/cm 2 ), and the shrinkage vectors were computed via image segmentation. Thereafter, linear polymerization shrinkage, shrinkage stress and gelation time were measured ( n  = 10). Results The greatest shrinkage vectors were found in “SDR-bulk” and “SDR-increment2,” and the smallest were found in “SDR-increment1-covered” and “EvoFlow-increment1-covered.” Shrinkage away from and toward the cavity floor was greatest in “SDR-bulk” and “EvoFlow-increment2,” respectively. The mean values of the shrinkage vectors were significantly different between groups (one-way ANOVA, Tamhane’s T2 test, p  
ISSN:1432-6981
1436-3771
DOI:10.1007/s00784-020-03412-3