Effect of temperature on unpolymerized composite resin film thickness

John S. Blalock, Robert G. Holmes, Frederick A. Rueggeberg

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

47 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Statement of problem: Room temperature (RT) composite resins are viscous, and this condition may affect the ability of the material to flow and adapt to preparation walls. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the film thickness of a variety of commercial composite resins heated prior to light polymerization. The film thickness of these heated materials was also compared to those of flowable products at RT. Material and methods: Five flowable and 7 conventional composite resins were used: 2 microfills, a nanofill hybrid, 2 submicron hybrids, a trimodal hybrid, and a packable. Composite resin (0.05 mL) was pressed between 2 Mylar-covered glass plates (15 kg) for 180 seconds, light polymerized, and the thickness measured using a micrometer. When comparing conventional composite resin heated to 54°C or 60°C, the RT value was control, while the RT flowable values were control when compared to heated composite resin. (n=5/group). Data were analyzed using 1- and 2-way analysis of variance and the Tukey-Kramer post hoc test (α=.05). Correlation of filler content to flow potential was evaluated. Scanning electron microscopic analysis of polymerized specimens was characterized by filler size and shape. Results: Room temperature conventional composite resin values varied in film thickness. Not all preheated products reduced in thickness. Thickness of the nanofill did not reduce, and one of the submicron hybrids reduced the greatest. No correlation existed between composite resin classification, filler content or shape, and film thickness. No difference in thickness existed between composite resins preheated to 54°C and 60°C. Room temperature and preheated conventional composite resin provided film thickness greater than that of flowable materials. Conclusions: Preheating conventional composite resin yields lower film thickness for some products, but flow cannot be attributed to composite resin classification, filler content, or shape. Preheated composite resin thickness was greater than that of all flowables.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)424-432
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Volume96
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2006

Fingerprint

Composite Resins
Temperature
Light
Polymerization
Glass
Analysis of Variance

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oral Surgery

Cite this

Effect of temperature on unpolymerized composite resin film thickness. / Blalock, John S.; Holmes, Robert G.; Rueggeberg, Frederick A.

In: Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, Vol. 96, No. 6, 01.12.2006, p. 424-432.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{b6e15b59be7c4da59322e594d3bc9d92,
title = "Effect of temperature on unpolymerized composite resin film thickness",
abstract = "Statement of problem: Room temperature (RT) composite resins are viscous, and this condition may affect the ability of the material to flow and adapt to preparation walls. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the film thickness of a variety of commercial composite resins heated prior to light polymerization. The film thickness of these heated materials was also compared to those of flowable products at RT. Material and methods: Five flowable and 7 conventional composite resins were used: 2 microfills, a nanofill hybrid, 2 submicron hybrids, a trimodal hybrid, and a packable. Composite resin (0.05 mL) was pressed between 2 Mylar-covered glass plates (15 kg) for 180 seconds, light polymerized, and the thickness measured using a micrometer. When comparing conventional composite resin heated to 54°C or 60°C, the RT value was control, while the RT flowable values were control when compared to heated composite resin. (n=5/group). Data were analyzed using 1- and 2-way analysis of variance and the Tukey-Kramer post hoc test (α=.05). Correlation of filler content to flow potential was evaluated. Scanning electron microscopic analysis of polymerized specimens was characterized by filler size and shape. Results: Room temperature conventional composite resin values varied in film thickness. Not all preheated products reduced in thickness. Thickness of the nanofill did not reduce, and one of the submicron hybrids reduced the greatest. No correlation existed between composite resin classification, filler content or shape, and film thickness. No difference in thickness existed between composite resins preheated to 54°C and 60°C. Room temperature and preheated conventional composite resin provided film thickness greater than that of flowable materials. Conclusions: Preheating conventional composite resin yields lower film thickness for some products, but flow cannot be attributed to composite resin classification, filler content, or shape. Preheated composite resin thickness was greater than that of all flowables.",
author = "Blalock, {John S.} and Holmes, {Robert G.} and Rueggeberg, {Frederick A.}",
year = "2006",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.prosdent.2006.09.022",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "96",
pages = "424--432",
journal = "Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry",
issn = "0022-3913",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Effect of temperature on unpolymerized composite resin film thickness

AU - Blalock, John S.

AU - Holmes, Robert G.

AU - Rueggeberg, Frederick A.

PY - 2006/12/1

Y1 - 2006/12/1

N2 - Statement of problem: Room temperature (RT) composite resins are viscous, and this condition may affect the ability of the material to flow and adapt to preparation walls. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the film thickness of a variety of commercial composite resins heated prior to light polymerization. The film thickness of these heated materials was also compared to those of flowable products at RT. Material and methods: Five flowable and 7 conventional composite resins were used: 2 microfills, a nanofill hybrid, 2 submicron hybrids, a trimodal hybrid, and a packable. Composite resin (0.05 mL) was pressed between 2 Mylar-covered glass plates (15 kg) for 180 seconds, light polymerized, and the thickness measured using a micrometer. When comparing conventional composite resin heated to 54°C or 60°C, the RT value was control, while the RT flowable values were control when compared to heated composite resin. (n=5/group). Data were analyzed using 1- and 2-way analysis of variance and the Tukey-Kramer post hoc test (α=.05). Correlation of filler content to flow potential was evaluated. Scanning electron microscopic analysis of polymerized specimens was characterized by filler size and shape. Results: Room temperature conventional composite resin values varied in film thickness. Not all preheated products reduced in thickness. Thickness of the nanofill did not reduce, and one of the submicron hybrids reduced the greatest. No correlation existed between composite resin classification, filler content or shape, and film thickness. No difference in thickness existed between composite resins preheated to 54°C and 60°C. Room temperature and preheated conventional composite resin provided film thickness greater than that of flowable materials. Conclusions: Preheating conventional composite resin yields lower film thickness for some products, but flow cannot be attributed to composite resin classification, filler content, or shape. Preheated composite resin thickness was greater than that of all flowables.

AB - Statement of problem: Room temperature (RT) composite resins are viscous, and this condition may affect the ability of the material to flow and adapt to preparation walls. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the film thickness of a variety of commercial composite resins heated prior to light polymerization. The film thickness of these heated materials was also compared to those of flowable products at RT. Material and methods: Five flowable and 7 conventional composite resins were used: 2 microfills, a nanofill hybrid, 2 submicron hybrids, a trimodal hybrid, and a packable. Composite resin (0.05 mL) was pressed between 2 Mylar-covered glass plates (15 kg) for 180 seconds, light polymerized, and the thickness measured using a micrometer. When comparing conventional composite resin heated to 54°C or 60°C, the RT value was control, while the RT flowable values were control when compared to heated composite resin. (n=5/group). Data were analyzed using 1- and 2-way analysis of variance and the Tukey-Kramer post hoc test (α=.05). Correlation of filler content to flow potential was evaluated. Scanning electron microscopic analysis of polymerized specimens was characterized by filler size and shape. Results: Room temperature conventional composite resin values varied in film thickness. Not all preheated products reduced in thickness. Thickness of the nanofill did not reduce, and one of the submicron hybrids reduced the greatest. No correlation existed between composite resin classification, filler content or shape, and film thickness. No difference in thickness existed between composite resins preheated to 54°C and 60°C. Room temperature and preheated conventional composite resin provided film thickness greater than that of flowable materials. Conclusions: Preheating conventional composite resin yields lower film thickness for some products, but flow cannot be attributed to composite resin classification, filler content, or shape. Preheated composite resin thickness was greater than that of all flowables.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33845434078&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33845434078&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.prosdent.2006.09.022

DO - 10.1016/j.prosdent.2006.09.022

M3 - Article

C2 - 17174660

AN - SCOPUS:33845434078

VL - 96

SP - 424

EP - 432

JO - Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

JF - Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

SN - 0022-3913

IS - 6

ER -