Polymerization shrinkage and spherical glass mega fillers: Effects on cuspal deflection

5Citations
Citations of this article
19Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Purpose. The Authors analyzed the effect of spherical glass mega fillers (SGMF) on reducing contraction stress in dental composite resins, by means of a cavity model simulating the cuspal deflection which occurs on filled tooth cavity walls in clinical condition. Materials and methods. 20 stylized MOD cavities (C-factor = 0.83) were performed in acrylic resin. The inner surface of each cavity was sand blasted and adhesively treated in order to ensure a valid bond with the composite resin. Three different diameter of SGMF were used (i.e. 1, 1,5, 2 mm). The samples were divided in 4 groups of 5 each: Group 1 samples filled with the composite only; Group 2 samples filled with composite added with SGMFs, Ø1mm (16 spheres for each sample); Group 3 samples filled with composite added with SGMFs, Ø1,5 mm (5 spheres for each sample); Group 4 samples filled with composite added with SGMFs, Ø2 mm (2 spheres for each sample). Digital pictures were taken, in standardized settings, before and immediately after the polymerization of the composite material, placed into the cavities. With a digital image analysis software the distances from the coronal reference points of the cavity walls were measured. Then the difference between the first and second measurement was calculated. The data were analyzed by means of the ANOVA test. Results. A significative reduction on cavity walls deflection, when the composite resin is used in addiction with the SGMFs was observed. The SGMFs of smallest diameter (1mm) showed the better outcome. Conclusion. The SGMFs are reliable in reducing contraction stress in dental composite resins.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Andreasi Bassi, M., Serra, S., Andrisani, C., Lico, S., Baggi, L., & Lauritano, D. (2016). Polymerization shrinkage and spherical glass mega fillers: Effects on cuspal deflection. ORAL and Implantology, 9, 71–79. https://doi.org/10.11138/orl/2016.9.1S.071

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free