HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

J Am Dent Assoc, Vol 134, No 6, 721-728. © 2003 American Dental Association

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by BRAGA, R. R. Articles by FERRACANE, J. L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by BRAGA, R. R. Articles by FERRACANE, J. L. Related Collections Restoratives

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 pre-cured 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 nonflowable 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.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				F. Goncalves, C.S. Pfeifer, J.L. Ferracane, and R.R. Braga Contraction Stress Determinants in Dimethacrylate Composites Journal of Dental Research, April 1, 2008; 87(4): 367 - 371. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J.W. Park and J.L. Ferracane Residual Stress in Composites with the Thin-ring-slitting Approach Journal of Dental Research, October 1, 2006; 85(10): 945 - 949. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Hashimoto, A.J. de Gee, M. Kaga, and A.J. Feilzer Contraction Stress in Dentin Adhesives Bonded to Dentin Journal of Dental Research, August 1, 2006; 85(8): 728 - 732. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. S. Costa Pfeifer, R. R. Braga, and P. E. C. Cardoso Influence of cavity dimensions, insertion technique and adhesive system on microleakage of Class V restorations J Am Dent Assoc, February 1, 2006; 137(2): 197 - 202. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R.R. Braga and J.L. Ferracane ALTERNATIVES IN POLYMERIZATION CONTRACTION STRESS MANAGEMENT Critical Reviews in Oral Biology & Medicine, May 1, 2004; 15(3): 176 - 184. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]