School of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Esenler Medipol Hospital, Istanbul Medipol University, Birlik Mah. Bahçeler Cad. No: 5, Esenler, 34230, İstanbul, Turkey.
Dental Materials Unit, Center for Dental and Oral Medicine, Clinic for Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Materials Science, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Clin Oral Investig. 2020 May;24(5):1687-1693. doi: 10.1007/s00784-019-03025-5. Epub 2019 Jul 25.
This study evaluated the influence of cavity depth on polymerization shrinkage of bulk-fill resin composites with and without adhesive resin.
Standardized box-shaped cavities (width, 4 mm; length, 5 mm, depth, 2 mm or 4 mm) were made on occlusal surfaces of extracted human third molars (N = 60). The teeth were assigned to 3 groups to receive bulk-fill resin composites (low-viscosity bulk-fill, SDR; high-viscosity bulk-fill; Filtek Bulk-Fill-FB; and TetricEvo Ceram Bulk-Fill-TB) in the prepared cavities with and without adhesive resin (Clearfil S3 Bond). Each specimen (n = 5 per group) was scanned twice using microcomputed tomography (micro-CT): once after application of the resin composite to the cavity prior to polymerisation and once after polymerisation. The shrinkage of volumetric loss (%) was measured using micro-CT. Data were analysed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests (alpha = 0.05).
The material type (p < 0.05), application of adhesive resin (p < 0.05) and cavity depth (p < 0.05) significantly affected the shrinkage values. The interaction terms were also significant (p < 0.05). All the bulk-fill resin composites tested showed significantly less shrinkage when applied in cavities with adhesive resin (0.94-2.55) compared with those without (2.01-3.45) (p < 0.05) and presented significantly more shrinkage after polymerisation (p < 0.05). At a 2-mm cavity depth without (2 mm, 2.28; 4 mm, 2.41) and with adhesive (2 mm, 0.94; 4 mm, 1.67), significantly less shrinkage was observed with FB compared with SDR and TB (p < 0.05). At a 4-mm cavity depth without (3.14) and with adhesive (2.55), SDR showed significantly higher shrinkage compared with FB and TB (p < 0.05).
The bulk-fill composites tested presented less shrinkage when used in conjunction with adhesive resin application on dentin. Overall, the low-viscosity bulk-fill resin SDR showed more shrinkage compared with high-viscosity resins tested.
Low- or high-viscosity bulk-fill resin composites should be applied on dentin after application of adhesive resin to decrease shrinkage.
本研究评估了有无粘结树脂对不同深度窝洞的通用型树脂聚合收缩的影响。
在 60 颗离体第三磨牙的颌面制备标准的盒状窝洞（宽 4mm，长 5mm，深 2mm 或 4mm）。将牙齿分为 3 组，在预备窝洞时使用含有或不含有粘结剂（Clearfil S3 Bond）的通用型树脂复合材料（低黏度通用型，SDR；高黏度通用型；Filtek Bulk-Fill-FB；和 TetricEvo Ceram Bulk-Fill-TB）进行充填。每组（n=5）分别在两次扫描时使用微计算机断层扫描（micro-CT）：一次是在聚合前应用树脂复合材料到窝洞后，一次是在聚合后。使用 micro-CT 测量体积损失的收缩率（%）。使用 Kruskal-Wallis 和 Mann-Whitney U 检验（alpha=0.05）进行数据分析。
材料类型（p<0.05）、粘结剂的应用（p<0.05）和窝洞深度（p<0.05）显著影响收缩值。交互项也有显著意义（p<0.05）。与不使用粘结剂的窝洞（2.01-3.45）相比，所有测试的通用型树脂复合材料在使用粘结剂的窝洞（0.94-2.55）中显示出显著较少的收缩（p<0.05），且在聚合后显示出显著更多的收缩（p<0.05）。在 2mm 深的窝洞（2mm，2.28；4mm，2.41），无粘结剂和有粘结剂时（2mm，0.94；4mm，1.67），FB 与 SDR 和 TB 相比，收缩明显减少（p<0.05）。在 4mm 深的窝洞（3.14），无粘结剂和有粘结剂时（2.55），SDR 与 FB 和 TB 相比，收缩明显增加（p<0.05）。
测试的通用型树脂复合材料在与牙本质粘结剂联合使用时，收缩量减少。总体而言，与测试的高黏度树脂相比，低黏度通用型 SDR 显示出更多的收缩。
低黏度或高黏度通用型树脂复合材料应在牙本质上使用粘结剂后使用，以减少收缩。
