Price R B, Rizkalla A S, Hall G C
Department of Dental Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Am J Dent. 2000 Aug;13(4):176-80.
To compare the volumetric polymerization shrinkage and dynamic bulk modulus of five resins and an experimental unfilled resin polymerized with a stepped power light and with a conventional one step curing light.
Parallel sided glass rings 5 mm in diameter and 2 mm high were etched for 5 min with hydrofluoric acid and silanated. The density and volume of the rings were calculated before they were filled with either SureFil, AEliteflo, Pertac II, Z100, or an experimental unfilled resin. When cured, the resin was bonded to the glass ring which produced a mold with a configuration C-factor of approximately 0.8. The resin was cured for 40 s on each side using either a one step curing light or a stepped power curing light. After curing, the specimens were weighed in air and in water to calculate their final density and volumetric shrinkage. Ten samples were made using each light system and for each resin (total of 100 samples). The bulk modulus was determined for each resin using an ultrasonic method, and the percentage filler contents were determined by thermogravimetric analysis.
The mean +/- SD volumetric polymerization shrinkage values ranged from 3.10 +/- 1.19% for SureFil using the one step light to 12.35 +/- 1.38% for the unfilled resin using the stepped power curing light. Student-Newman-Keuls post hoc test separated the 10 different materials into three significant groups at P= 0.05. The unfilled resin exhibited the highest volumetric shrinkage followed by the flowable composite (AEliteflo). For all materials tested, there was no significant difference in the volumetric shrinkage values when the resin was cured with the one step or the stepped power curing light. There was no significant difference in the volumetric shrinkage values for the hybrid composites (Pertac II, Z100, and SureFil). The volumetric shrinkage values were highly sensitive to filler weight (P < 0.001). Except for Z100, there was no difference in the specific gravity values and velocities of the longitudinal and shear waves and bulk modulus when the one step and stepped power curing lights were used. The bulk modulus values ranged from 6.30 +/- 0.19 GPa for unfilled resin, to 17.10 +/- 1.09 GPa for Z100. Curing with the one step or the stepped curing light had no significant effect on the modulus values for any resin with the exception of Z100, P = 0.05. The bulk modulus values were highly sensitive to filler weight, and higher modulus values were associated with increased filler weight (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the bulk modulus of Pertac II and SureFil (P = 0.05).
比较五种树脂以及一种实验性未填充树脂在使用阶梯式功率光固化灯和传统一步式固化灯聚合时的体积聚合收缩率和动态体积模量。
将直径5毫米、高2毫米的平行边玻璃环用氢氟酸蚀刻5分钟并进行硅烷化处理。在向玻璃环中填充SureFil、AEliteflo、Pertac II、Z100或一种实验性未填充树脂之前,计算玻璃环的密度和体积。固化后,树脂与玻璃环粘结在一起,形成一个C因子约为0.8的模具。使用一步式固化灯或阶梯式功率固化灯在每一侧对树脂固化40秒。固化后,将试样在空气中和水中称重,以计算其最终密度和体积收缩率。每种光固化系统和每种树脂制作10个样品(共100个样品)。使用超声方法测定每种树脂的体积模量,并通过热重分析测定填料含量百分比。
平均±标准差体积聚合收缩率值范围从使用一步式光固化灯时SureFil的3.10±1.19%到使用阶梯式功率固化灯时未填充树脂的12.35±1.38%。Student-Newman-Keuls事后检验在P = 0.05时将10种不同材料分为三个显著组。未填充树脂表现出最高的体积收缩率,其次是可流动复合树脂(AEliteflo)。对于所有测试材料,当用一步式或阶梯式功率固化灯固化树脂时,体积收缩率值没有显著差异。混合复合树脂(Pertac II、Z100和SureFil)的体积收缩率值没有显著差异。体积收缩率值对填料重量高度敏感(P < 0.001)。除Z100外,使用一步式和阶梯式功率固化灯时,比重值、纵波和剪切波速度以及体积模量没有差异。体积模量值范围从未填充树脂的6.30±0.19吉帕到Z100的17.10±1.09吉帕。除Z100(P = 0.05)外,用一步式或阶梯式固化灯固化对任何树脂的模量值没有显著影响。体积模量值对填料重量高度敏感,较高的模量值与填料重量增加相关(P < 0.001)。Pertac II和SureFil的体积模量之间没有显著差异(P = 0.05)。