Contraction stress of flowable composite materials and their efficacy as stress-relieving layers

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

113 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background. The authors compared the polymerization contraction stress produced by flowable resin-based composites with stress values produced by nonflowable composites. They also measured the stress reduction produced by placing a precured layer of flowable composite under a nonflowable composite. Methods. The authors first tested four flowable and six nonflowable composite materials for contraction stress in a tensiometer. In the second part of the study, they applied a 1.4-millimeter-thick layer of flowable composite or unfilled resin and precured it in the test apparatus to assess the stress relief produced by a low-modulus material during light curing of a subsequent layer of highly filled composite. Flexural moduli of the precured materials were determined via a three-point bending test. Results. The stress values ranged between 6.04 and 9.10 megapascals. The authors found no significant differences in stress between flowable and nonflowable composites. Microfilled composites produced lower contraction stress than did hybrids. The flexural modulus of the flowable composites varied between 4.1 and 8.2 GPa. Regarding the effect of a precured layer of composite on contraction stress, the authors observed significant reductions with only one of the flowable materials and with the unfilled resin. Conclusions. The flowable composites produced stress levels similar to those of nonflowable materials. Most of the flowable materials tested did not produce significant stress reductions when used under a non-flowable composite. Clinical Implications. Using a flowable resin-based composite as a restorative material is not likely to reduce the effects of polymerization stress. When used in a thin layer under a nonflowable composite, the stress reduction depended on the elastic modulus of the lining material.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)721-728+742
JournalJournal of the American Dental Association
Volume134
Issue number6
StatePublished - Jun 2003

Fingerprint

Composite Resins
Polymerization
Elastic Modulus
flowable hybrid composite
Light

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Contraction stress of flowable composite materials and their efficacy as stress-relieving layers. / Braga, Roberto R.; Hilton, Thomas (Tom); Ferracane, Jack.

In: Journal of the American Dental Association, Vol. 134, No. 6, 06.2003, p. 721-728+742.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{81c4f05076b2483bb30a92261c6cd441,
title = "Contraction stress of flowable composite materials and their efficacy as stress-relieving layers",
abstract = "Background. The authors compared the polymerization contraction stress produced by flowable resin-based composites with stress values produced by nonflowable composites. They also measured the stress reduction produced by placing a precured layer of flowable composite under a nonflowable composite. Methods. The authors first tested four flowable and six nonflowable composite materials for contraction stress in a tensiometer. In the second part of the study, they applied a 1.4-millimeter-thick layer of flowable composite or unfilled resin and precured it in the test apparatus to assess the stress relief produced by a low-modulus material during light curing of a subsequent layer of highly filled composite. Flexural moduli of the precured materials were determined via a three-point bending test. Results. The stress values ranged between 6.04 and 9.10 megapascals. The authors found no significant differences in stress between flowable and nonflowable composites. Microfilled composites produced lower contraction stress than did hybrids. The flexural modulus of the flowable composites varied between 4.1 and 8.2 GPa. Regarding the effect of a precured layer of composite on contraction stress, the authors observed significant reductions with only one of the flowable materials and with the unfilled resin. Conclusions. The flowable composites produced stress levels similar to those of nonflowable materials. Most of the flowable materials tested did not produce significant stress reductions when used under a non-flowable composite. Clinical Implications. Using a flowable resin-based composite as a restorative material is not likely to reduce the effects of polymerization stress. When used in a thin layer under a nonflowable composite, the stress reduction depended on the elastic modulus of the lining material.",
author = "Braga, {Roberto R.} and Hilton, {Thomas (Tom)} and Jack Ferracane",
year = "2003",
month = "6",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "134",
pages = "721--728+742",
journal = "Journal of the American Dental Association",
issn = "0002-8177",
publisher = "American Dental Association",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Contraction stress of flowable composite materials and their efficacy as stress-relieving layers

AU - Braga, Roberto R.

AU - Hilton, Thomas (Tom)

AU - Ferracane, Jack

PY - 2003/6

Y1 - 2003/6

N2 - Background. The authors compared the polymerization contraction stress produced by flowable resin-based composites with stress values produced by nonflowable composites. They also measured the stress reduction produced by placing a precured layer of flowable composite under a nonflowable composite. Methods. The authors first tested four flowable and six nonflowable composite materials for contraction stress in a tensiometer. In the second part of the study, they applied a 1.4-millimeter-thick layer of flowable composite or unfilled resin and precured it in the test apparatus to assess the stress relief produced by a low-modulus material during light curing of a subsequent layer of highly filled composite. Flexural moduli of the precured materials were determined via a three-point bending test. Results. The stress values ranged between 6.04 and 9.10 megapascals. The authors found no significant differences in stress between flowable and nonflowable composites. Microfilled composites produced lower contraction stress than did hybrids. The flexural modulus of the flowable composites varied between 4.1 and 8.2 GPa. Regarding the effect of a precured layer of composite on contraction stress, the authors observed significant reductions with only one of the flowable materials and with the unfilled resin. Conclusions. The flowable composites produced stress levels similar to those of nonflowable materials. Most of the flowable materials tested did not produce significant stress reductions when used under a non-flowable composite. Clinical Implications. Using a flowable resin-based composite as a restorative material is not likely to reduce the effects of polymerization stress. When used in a thin layer under a nonflowable composite, the stress reduction depended on the elastic modulus of the lining material.

AB - Background. The authors compared the polymerization contraction stress produced by flowable resin-based composites with stress values produced by nonflowable composites. They also measured the stress reduction produced by placing a precured layer of flowable composite under a nonflowable composite. Methods. The authors first tested four flowable and six nonflowable composite materials for contraction stress in a tensiometer. In the second part of the study, they applied a 1.4-millimeter-thick layer of flowable composite or unfilled resin and precured it in the test apparatus to assess the stress relief produced by a low-modulus material during light curing of a subsequent layer of highly filled composite. Flexural moduli of the precured materials were determined via a three-point bending test. Results. The stress values ranged between 6.04 and 9.10 megapascals. The authors found no significant differences in stress between flowable and nonflowable composites. Microfilled composites produced lower contraction stress than did hybrids. The flexural modulus of the flowable composites varied between 4.1 and 8.2 GPa. Regarding the effect of a precured layer of composite on contraction stress, the authors observed significant reductions with only one of the flowable materials and with the unfilled resin. Conclusions. The flowable composites produced stress levels similar to those of nonflowable materials. Most of the flowable materials tested did not produce significant stress reductions when used under a non-flowable composite. Clinical Implications. Using a flowable resin-based composite as a restorative material is not likely to reduce the effects of polymerization stress. When used in a thin layer under a nonflowable composite, the stress reduction depended on the elastic modulus of the lining material.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0141498911&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0141498911&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 12839408

AN - SCOPUS:0141498911

VL - 134

SP - 721-728+742

JO - Journal of the American Dental Association

JF - Journal of the American Dental Association

SN - 0002-8177

IS - 6

ER -