This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ PrePrints) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited.
Cite this article
Maia R, Reis RS, Moro AF, Perez C, Pessôa B, Dias KR. (2015) Properties evaluation of silorane, low-shrinkage, non-flowable and flowable resin-based composites in dentistry. PeerJ PrePrints3:e875v1https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.875v1
Purpose: This study tested the null hypothesis that different classes of direct restorative dental materials (silorane-based resin, low-shrinkage and conventional (non-flowable and flowable) resin-based composite (RBC)) do not differ from each other with regard to polymerization shrinkage, depth of cure, or microhardness. Methods: 140 RBC samples were fabricated and tested by one calibrated operator. Polymerization shrinkage was measured using a gas pycnometer both before and immediately after curing with 36 J/cm2 light energy density. Depth of cure was determined, using a penetrometer and the Knoop microhardness was tested from the top surface to a depth of 5 mm. Results: Considering polymerization shrinkage, the authors found significant differences (p<0,05) between different materials: non-flowable RBCs showed lower values, compared to flowable RBCs, with the silorane-based resin presenting the smallest shrinkage. The low shrinkage flowable composite performed similarly to non-flowable, with significant statistical differences compared to the two other flowable RBCs. Regarding to depth of cure, low-shrinkage flowable RBC were most effective compared to other groups. Microhardness was generally higher for the non-flowable vs. flowable RBCs (p<0.05). However, the values for low-shrinkage flowable did not differ significantly from those of non-flowable, but were significantly higher than those of the other flowable RBCs. Clinical Significance: RBCs have undergone many modifications as they have evolved and represent the most relevant restorative materials in today’s dental practice. This study of low-shrinkage RBCs, conventional RBCs (non-flowable and flowable) and silorane-based composite – by in vitro evaluation of volumetric shrinkage, depth of cure and microhardness – reveals that although filler content is an important determinant of polymerization shrinkage, it is not the only variable that affects properties of materials that were tested in this study.
This is version 2 of a submission currently under review at PeerJ.
"Following" is like subscribing to any updates related to a preprint.
These updates will appear in your home dashboard each time you visit PeerJ.
You can also choose to receive updates via daily or weekly email digests.
If you are following multiple preprints then we will send you
no more than one email per day or week based on your preferences.
Note: You are now also subscribed to the subject areas of this preprint
and will receive updates in the daily or weekly email digests if turned on.
You can add specific subject areas through your profile settings.