Journal of Dental Medicine

 Polymerization shrinkage of light cure composite resins causes many complications in conservative and esthetic restorations. The objective of this in-vitro study was to evaluate the polymerization shrinkage, degree of conversion and the amount of filler in IDM and tetric ceram composites. Ten disk shaped, uncured specimens (8mm×1.547mm) of each composite were placed on glass slide in the center of the metal attached to it. Then specimens were light cured for 60s from underneath. After 30 minutes, the thickness of specimens, using a micrometer and the percent of the polymerization shrinkage of each sample were measured. Statistical analysis was carried out by t-test (P<0.05). Also the degree of conversion of specimens was evaluated with FTIR and the mineral filler content was measured by burning in electric oven. Polymerization shrinkage in IDM and tetric ceram was not significantly different. Degree of conversion and mineral filler content in tetric ceram was greater than that of IDM.

It is assumed that the low degree of conversion in IDM is due to its chemical composition and filler content. Also, the similarity in linear polymerization shrinkage between IDM and tetric ceram may be caused by the low degree of conversion in IDM.

Statement of Problem: Composite reins have recently become popular for posterior teeth restorations. Gap formation and subsequent microleakage are of the complications resulting from such restorations. One of the techniques to overcome polymerization shrinkage of composite resins is sandwich technique (application of glass ionomer as a base beneath the composite resin). Since polymerization patterns in two types of composite resins (light cure and self cure) differ from each other, various effects on the bond strength between glass ionomer and dentin are expected.
Purpose: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effects of self- cure and light- cure composite resins in sandwich technique on the bond strength of light cure glass ionomer and dentin.
Materials and Methods: 40 extracted human premolars were selected and divided into four groups:Group 1: Light cure glass ionomer of 1mm thickness was placed on dentin.Group 2: 1mm thickness of light cure glass ionomer plus a mass of self cure composite resin of 2mm thickness were placed.Group 3: 1mm thickness of light cure glass ionomer plus light cure composite resin as two separate 1mm layer were placed.Group 4: 1mm thickness of light cure glass ionomer with 37% phosphoric acid etching followed by two separate layers of light cure composite resin of 1 mm thickness were placed.SEM was used to determine gap size ai Gl- dentin and Gi- composite interlaces. The findings were analyzed by ANOVA and t-student tests.

Results: Groups 1 and 2 showed no gap at Gl-dentm interface and also cracks were not observed in all these specimens. In group 3, there was gap between light cure GI and light cure composite resin and cracks were seen in GI, too. Group 4 showed gap at both interfaces and more cracks were seen in GI. Groups I and 2 showed the least gap formation and group 4 showed the most. Statistically significant difference was found between groups 3, 4 and group 1 (control), 2.
Conclusion: Base on this study, the application of self-cure composite resin on light cure GI showed no gap and crack formation on Gl-dentin and Gl-composite interfaces and GI itself. However, light cure composite resins and glass ionomer etching aggregated crack and gap formation.

Background and Aim: Use of provisional restorations is one of the important phases in the treatment of patients who need fixed prosthesis. Some physical properties are required for these materials. The purpose of this study was the comparison of some physical properties of 4 kinds of resins: Trim, Tempron, Duralay (Aria Dent) and Acropars TRII.

Materials and Methods: In this experimental study, transverse-strength (TS), setting time (ST), polymerization shrinkage (PS) and temperature rise (TR) during polymerization were tested. In transverse strength test, 5 samples of each resin were made. TS testing was done with an Instron testing machine. ST testing (5 samples in each group) was done with Gilmore needle. In PS test, 11 cylindric samples were prepared from each resin and the shrinkage was examined with digital micrometer (up to 24 hours). In TR test, after mixing the powder and liquid of resins (8 samples in each group), the temperature rise was recorded with 10 seconds interval (up to 15 minutes). Data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests with p<0.05 as the limit of significance.

Results: In TS test, all samples of Trim were bent and no fracture was observed, while Tempron and Duralay showed no significant difference. Both Tempron and Duralay revealed high significant difference with Acropars TRII (P <0.01). In ST test, the difference between groups was significant (P<0.01). The lowest ST was observed in Acropars TRII (7 min), and the highest in Tempron (9.53 min). In PS test, significant difference was observed between Trim and Acropars TRII (P<0.01). PS was completed after 120 min in Tempron and Trim groups. However, PS continued to increase in other groups. In TR test, the difference between groups was significant (P<0.05). Duralay showed the highest TR and the lowest was seen in Trim.

Conclusion: In this study, Trim showed better properties than other studied groups. Acropars TRII had the lowest strength. The highest temperature rise was recorded for Duralay and Tempron, respectively.

Background and Aim: Polymerization shrinkage of resin cements during setting leads to stress on teeth receiving indirect esthetic restorations. Some methods like blocking out undercuts during cavity preparation with glass Ionomer can reduce the mass of resin cement and therefore the amount of stress. The aim of this study was to evaluate the fracture resistance of molar teeth, receiving class I ceramic inlays with two different methods of blocking out undercut.

Materials and Methods: In this experimental study, thirty intact molar teeth were randomly divided into three groups of 10 each. One group was maintained intact as the control group. Similar class I cavities with identical undercuts were prepared on the other groups. In group 2 the undercut was filled with light cured glass Ionomer (vitremer 3M) before making impression, and in group 3 they were blocked out in the lab before preparation of the inlay. All the teeth in test groups were restored with indirect ceramic inlays.(vitadur - Alpha/ single bond / Rely X ARC). After thermocycling load causing fracture was assessed by universal testing machine. All the specimens were examined under a steriomicroscope (X40) to determine type of fracture. The results were analyzed by one way ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests. P< 0.05 was considered as the level of significance.

Results: The restored groups showed significantly less fracture resistance than the control group. The difference between two test groups was not significant. The fracture in group2 had less destruction.

Conclusion: According to the findings of this study, blocking out the undercut with two different methods (using glass ionomer/ or blocking it out on the die) made no diferrence in fracture resistance.

Background and Aims: Composite restorative materials and dental adhesives are usually cured with light sources. The light direction may influence the bond strength of dental adhesives. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of light direction on the microtensile bond strength of fifth and sixth generation dental adhesives.

Materials and Methods: Prime & Bond NT and Clearfil SE bond were used with different light directions. Sixty human incisor teeth were divided into 4 groups (n=15). In groups A and C, Clearfil SE bond with light curing direction from buccal was used for bonding a composite resin to dentin. In groups B and D, Prime & Bond NT with light curing direction from composite was used. After thermocycling the specimens were subjected to tensile force until debonding occurred and values for microtensile bond strength were recorded. The data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey post hoc test.

Results: The findings showed that the bond strength of Clearfil SE bond was significantly higher than that of Prime&Bond NT (P<0.001). There was no significant difference between light curing directions (P=0.132).

Conclusion: Light curing direction did not have significant effect on the bond strength. Sixth generation adhesives was more successful than fifth generation in terms of bond strength to dentin.

Background and Aims: Marginal seal in class V cavity and determination of the best restorative material in reducing microleakage is of great concern in operative dentistry. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of load cycling on the microleakage of low shrinkage composites compared with methacrylate-based composites with low shirinkage rate in class V cavity preparation. Marginal integrity of these materials was assessed using scanning electron microscope (SEM).

Materials and Methods: In this in vitro study, class V cavity preparations were made on the buccal and lingual surfaces of 48 human premolars and molars (96 cavities). The specimens were divided into four groups each containing 12 teeth (24 cavities): group 1 (Kalore-GC+ G-Bond) , group 2 (Futurabond NR+Grandio), group 3 (All Bond SE+ Aelite LS Posterior), group 4 (LS System Adhesive Primer & Bond+Filtek P90). All the specimens were thermocycled for 2000 cycles (5-50^oC). In each group, half of the specimens (n=12) were subjected to 200,000 cycles of loading at 80 N. Epoxy resin replicas of 32 specimens (4 restorations in each subgroup) were evaluated using SEM and the interfacial gaps were measured. Finally, the teeth were immersed in 0.5% basic fuchsin dye for 24 hours at 37⁰C, then sectioned and observed under stereomicroscope. The data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests and the comparison between occlusal and gingival microleakage was made with Wilcoxon test.

Results: Within unloaded or loaded specimens, there were no significant differences in microleakage among four groups on the occlusal margins (P>0.05). But there were statistically significant differences in microleakage between silorane and Aelite on the gingival margins (P<0.05). No statistically significant differences were found between the microleakage of the loaded and unloaded groups on both occlusal and gingival margins for all materials (P>0.05).

Conclusion: Silorane did not perform better than the conventional low shrinkage methacrylate-based composite in terms of sealing ability (except Aelite). Cyclic loading did not increase the extent of leakage in any groups.