World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 11 , ISSUE 2 ( March-April, 2020 ) > List of Articles


Effect of Stress-decreasing Resin Thickness as an Intermediate Layer on Fracture Resistance of Class II Composite Restoration: An In Vitro Study

Arwin Leonardy, Trimurni Abidin, Dennis Dennis

Keywords : Class II restoration, Fracture resistance, Intermediate layer thickness, Stress-decreasing resin

Citation Information : Leonardy A, Abidin T, Dennis D. Effect of Stress-decreasing Resin Thickness as an Intermediate Layer on Fracture Resistance of Class II Composite Restoration: An In Vitro Study. World J Dent 2020; 11 (2):91-94.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1712

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 18-07-2020

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; The Author(s).


Aim: The present study aims to investigate the effect of stress-decreasing resin (SDR) thickness as an intermediate layer in class II restoration. Materials and methods: Forty human maxillary premolar teeth were obtained and divided into four groups: G1, G2, G3, and G4. G1 to G3 were restored using SDR as an intermediate layer and overlayed with packable composite, and G4 was restored only using packable composite. All teeth were stored in the saline solution for 24 hours and subjected to 250 thermal cycles. The fracture strength of the teeth was tested in a universal testing machine. Results: No statistically significant effect was observed on the fracture resistance of class II restoration restored using different SDR thickness as intermediate layer (p < 0.05). A 4-mm SDR thickness group showed the highest fracture resistance among other groups. Conclusion: Using SDR thickness as the intermediate layer will affect the fracture resistance of class II restoration, but it is not statistically significant. A 4-mm SDR thickness showed good result as an intermediate layer in a restoration. Clinical significance: Stress-decreasing resin used as an intermediate layer can increase fracture resistance in class II composite restoration.

  1. Dijken JWV, Pallesen U. Randomized 3-year clinical evaluation of class I and II posterior resin restorations placed with a bulk-fill resin composite and a one-step self-etching adhesive. J Adhes Dent 2015;17(1):81–88. DOI: 10.3290/j.jad.a33502.
  2. Natasha V, Suprastiwi E. Effect of the thickness of flowable composite as intermediate layer to reduce microleakage on gingival wall. J Phys: Conf Ser 2017; 884(1):012018. DOI: 10.1088/1742-6596/884/1/012018.
  3. Moosavi H, Zeynali M, Pour ZH. Fracture resistance of premolars restored by various types and placement techniques of resin composites. Int J Dent 2012;2012:1–5. DOI: 10.1155/2012/973641.
  4. Valian A, Moravej S, Geramy A, et al. Effect of extension and type of composite-restored class II cavities on biomehanical properties of teeth: a three dimensional finite element analysis. J Dent 2015;12(2):140–149.
  5. Oz FD, Ergin E, Gurgan S. Comparison of different base materials on fracture strength of mesio-occlusal-distal composite restorations. Arthritis Care & Res 2012;64(1):2–8.
  6. Feitosa FA, Esteves SR, Crastechini E, et al. Bulk fill resin restoration: clinical considerations and case report. IJDOS 2018;5(8):655–660.
  7. Buczko P, Sobczak KW, Matuszczak E, et al. The evaluation of smart dentin replacement (SDR), a year observation study. J Educ Health Sport 2018;8(3):140–148.
  8. Denstply. SDR smart dentin replacement. Sci Com 2011. 5-8,10-11,13-16,22-24.
  9. Yu P, Yap AUJ, Wang XY. Degree of conversion and polymerization shrinkage of bulk-fill resin-based composites. Operative Dent 2017;42(1):82–89. DOI: 10.2341/16-027-L.
  10. Yamamoto T, Hanabusa M, Kimura S, et al. Changes in polymerization stress and elastic modulus of bulk-fill resin composites for 24 hours after irradiation. Dent Mater J 2018;37(1):87–94. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2017-047.
  11. Kim R-JYY, Kim YJ, Choi N-S, et al. Polymerization shrinkage, modulus, and shrinkage stress related to tooth-restoration interfacial debonding in bulk-fill composites. J of Dent 2015(4):1–10. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2015.02.002.
  12. Pradeep K, Ginjupalli K, Kuttappa MA, et al. In vitro comparison of compressive strength of bulk-fill composites and nanohybrid composite. World Journal of Dentistry 2016;7(3):119–122. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1378.
  13. Rizzante FAP, Mondelli RFL, Furuse AY, et al. Shrinkage stress and elastic modulus assessment of bulk-fill composites. J Appl Oral Sci 2019;27:1–9. DOI: 10.1590/1678-7757-2018-0132.
  14. Almuhaiza MS, Magdy NM. Cuspal deflection and fracture resistance in maxillary premolar teeth restored with bulk-fill flowable resin-based composite materials. IJHSR 2018;8(3):105–112.
  15. Al-Makramani BMA, Razak AAA, Ng MY, et al. Effect of restorative techniques on fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars. Open Journal of Stomatology 2013;3(07):379–385. DOI: 10.4236/ojst.2013.37064.
  16. Roggendorf MJ, Kramer N, Appelt A, et al. Marginal quality of flowable 4-mm base vs conventionally layered resin composite. J Dent 2011;39(10):643–647. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2011.07.004.
  17. Ghavami-Lahiji M, Firouzmanesh M, Bagheri H, et al. The effect of thermocycling on the degree of conversion and mechanical properties of a microhybrid dental resin composite. Restor Dent Endod 2018;43(2):1–12. DOI: 10.5395/rde.2018.43.e26.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.