Transmission of composite polymerization contraction force through a flowable composite and a resin-modified glass ionomer cement

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the individual contraction force during polymerization of a composite resin (Z-250), a flowable composite (Filtek Flow, FF) and a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Vitrebond, VB), and the transmission of Z-250 composite resin polymerization contraction force through different thicknesses of FF and VB. The experiment setup consisted of two identical parallel steel plates connected to a universal testing machine. One was fixed to a transversal base and the other to the equipment's cross head. The evaluated materials were inserted into a 1-mm space between the steel plates or between the inferior steel plate and a previously polymerized layer of an intermediate material (either FF or VB) adhered to the upper steel plate. The composite resin was light-cured with a halogen lamp with light intensity of 500 mW/cm² for 60 s. A force/time graph was obtained for each sample for up to 120 s. Seven groups of 10 specimens each were evaluated: G1: Z-250; G2: FF; G3: VB; G4: Z-250 through a 0.5-mm layer of FF; G5: Z-250 through a 1-mm layer of FF; G6: Z-250 through a 0.5-mm of VB; G7: Z-250 through a 1-mm layer of VB. They were averaged and compared using one-way ANOVA and Tukey test at a = 0.05. The obtained contraction forces were: G1: 6.3N + 0.2N; G2: 9.8 + 0.2N; G3: 1.8 + 0.2N; G4: 6.8N + 0.2N; G5: 6.9N + 0.3N; G6: 4.0N + 0.4N and G7: 2.8N + 0.4N. The use of VB as an intermediate layer promoted a significant decrease in polymerization contraction force values of the restorative system, regardless of material thickness. The use of FF as an intermediate layer promoted an increase in polymerization contraction force values with both material thicknesses

Influence of different restorative techniques on marginal seal of class II composite restorations

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the gingival marginal seal in class II composite restorations using different restorative techniques. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Class II box cavities were prepared in both proximal faces of 32 sound human third molars with gingival margins located in either enamel or dentin/cementum. Restorations were performed as follows: G1 (control): composite, conventional light curing technique; G2: composite, soft-start technique; G3: amalgam/composite association (amalcomp); and G4: resin-modified glass ionomer cement/composite, open sandwich technique. The restored specimens were thermocycled. Epoxy resin replicas were made and coated for scanning electron microscopy examination. For microleakage evaluation, teeth were coated with nail polish and immersed in dye solution. Teeth were cut in 3 slices and dye penetration was recorded (mm), digitized and analyzed with Image Tool software. Microleakage data were analyzed statistically by non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests. RESULTS: Leakage in enamel was lower than in dentin (p<0.001). G2 exhibited the lowest leakage values (p<0.05) in enamel margins, with no differences between the other groups. In dentin margins, groups G1 and G2 had similar behavior and both showed less leakage (p<0.05) than groups G3 and G4. SEM micrographs revealed different marginal adaptation patterns for the different techniques and for the different substrates. CONCLUSION: The soft-start technique showed no leakage in enamel margins and produced similar values to those of the conventional (control) technique for dentin margins