COMPARISON OF VOLUMETRIC SHRINKAGE OF COMPOSITE RESIN NANOCERAMIC AND NANOFILLER
Objective: The main cause of failure of composite resin restorations is volumetric shrinkage. The aim of this study was to analyze and compare
volumetric shrinkage in nanohybrid and nanoceramic composite resins.
Methods: A total of 32 (3 cm×3 cm× 2 mm) cavities were analyzed for volume using micro-CT. The samples were divided randomly into two groups: 16 cavities that were restored using nanohybrid composite resin and 16 cavities that were restored using nanoceramic composite resin. The composite resin volume was analyzed using micro-CT.
Results: The difference in volumetric shrinkage between nanohybrid composite resin 245,866.5 mm3 (3%) and nanoceramic composite resin 3,470,175.13 mm3 (5%) was not significant (p=0.585).
Conclusion: Nanohybrid and nanoceramic composite resins have the same volumetric shrinkage rate.
2. Giachetti L, Russo DS, Bambi C, Grandini R. A review of polymerization shrinkage stress: Current techniques for posterior direct
resin restorations. J Contemp Dent Pract 2006;7:1-14.
3. Sandelin B, Afaag A. Polymerization Shrinkage of Dental Composites Registered by a Video-imaging Device. A Pilot Study. Available from: https://www.pdfs.semanticscholar. org/2a49/556edee9d78c1701c4d798a91821ba168de7.pdf.
4. Hamouda IM, Elkader HA, Badawi MF. Microleakage of nanofilled composite resin restorative material. J Biomater Nanobiotech
5. Dentsply. Ceram X Universal and Duo; 2015. p. 27. Available from: https://www.google.com/search?q=5.+dents
ply.+ceram+x+universal+and+duo.+2015%3b27.&oq=5.%09 d e n t s p l y. + c e r a m + x + u n i v e r s a l + a n d + d u o . + 2 0 1 5 %
3 b27.&aqs=chrome.69i57.3935j0j8&sour ceid=chrome&ie=utf-8
6. Braga RR, Ferracane JL, Health O. Alternatives in polymerization contraction stress management. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 2004;15:176-84.
7. Emeritus D. Philip’s Science of Dental Materials. 12th ed. United States: Elsevier, Saunders; 2013.
8. Dennison DG. Polymerization shrinkage and depth of cure of bulk fill flowable composite resins. Oper Dent 2014;39:441-8.
9. Sarangi P, Satapathy SK, Mohanty S, Mallick R, Behera S, Nanda SR. An in-vitro evaluation of microleakage among nano ceramics and nano hybrid composite resins in Class V cavities. Sci J Dent 2014;1:14-8.
10. Kim HJ, Park SH. Measurement of the internal adaptation of composite resins using micro-CT and its correlation with polymerization shrinkage. Oper Dent 2014;39:E57-70.
11. Enone LL, Awotile AO, Adegbulugbe CI, Agbaje LO, Odogun LA, Oyapero A. One-year clinical evaluation of nanohybrid composite resin in the restoration of occlusal and proximo-occlusal cavities in Nigeria. Adv Hum Biol 2017;7:130-6.
12. Suhasini K, Madhusudhana K, Suneelkumar C, Lavanya A, Chandrababu KS. Clinical performance of Class I nanohybrid composite restorations with resin-modified glass-ionomer liner and flowable composite liner : A randomized clinical trial. J Conserv Dent 2016;19:510-5.
13. Julian D, Amit M, Karin V, David C. Effect of resin-composite filler particle size and shape on shrinkage-stress. Dent Mater 2012;28:609-14.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.