• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.30 no.6
• /
• pp.450-460
• /
• 2005

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of cavity shape, bond quality of bonding agent and volume of resin composite on shrinkage stress developed at the cavity floor. This was done by measuring the shear bond strength with respect to iris materials (cavity shape , adhesive-coated dentin as a high C-factor and Teflon-coated metal as a low C-factor), bonding agents (bond quality: $Scotchbond^{TM}$ Multi-purpose and Xeno III) and iris hole diameters (volume; 1mm or 3mm in $diameter{\times}1.5mm$ in thickness). Ninety-six molars were randomly divided into 8 groups ($2{\times}2{\times}2$ experimental setup). In order to simulate a Class I cavity, shear bond strength was measured on the flat occlusal dentin surface with irises. The iris hole was filled with Z250 restorative resin composite in a bulk-filling manner. The data was analyzed using three-way ANOVA and the Tukey test. Fracture mode analysis was also done When the cavity had high C-factor, good bond quality and large volume, the bond strength decreased significantly The volume of resin composite restricted within the well-bonded cavity walls is also be suggested to be included in the concept of C-factor, as well as the cavity shape and bond quality. Since the bond quality and volume can exaggerate the effect of cavity shape on the shrinkage stress developed at the resin-dentin bond, resin composites must be filled in a method, which minimizes the volume that can increase the C-factor.

• Journal of the korean academy of Pediatric Dentistry
• /
• v.33 no.4
• /
• pp.693-698
• /
• 2006

In Class I cavity, the highest C-factor could be obtained and it means the highest polymerization shrinkage stress. In this study, high C-factor model was designed. The pulpose of present study was to determine differences of Microtensile bond strength (MTBS) of class I cavity pulpal and axial wall specimens in primary molar. Twenty clean mandibular 2nd primary molars were randomly divided into two groups Different composite Resins (Filtek Z250, 3M ESPE & Filtek Supreme, 3M ESPE) were bulk filled and photo cured. Axial wall specimens and pulpal specimens were prepared at the same teeth, All specimens were divided into 4 groups and MTBS were evaluated. Group ZP : Filtek Z250-Pulpal wall Group ZA : Filtek Z250-Axial wall Group SP : Filtek Supreme - Pulpal wall Group SA : Filtek Supreme - Axial wall The results were as follows: 1. Mean MTBS of ZP & ZA and SP & SA were significantly different(p<.001). 2. There was no significant difference between MTBS of ZP & SP and ZA & SA.

• Proceedings of the KACD Conference
• /
• 2001.05a
• /
• pp.235-237
• /
• 2001

;Dentistry has benefited from tremendous advances in technology with the introduction of new techniques and materials, and patients are aware that esthetic approaches in dentistry can change one's appearance. Increasingly. tooth-colored restorative materials have been used for restoration of posterior teeth. Tooth-colored restoration for posterior teeth can be divided into three categories: 1) the direct techniques that can be made in a single appointment and are an intraoral procedure utilizing composites: 2) the semidirect techniques that require both an intraoral and an extraoral procedure and are luted chairside utilizing composites: and 3) the indirect techniques that require several appointments and the expertise of a dental technician working with either composites or ceramics. But, resin restoration has inherent drawbacks of microleakage. polymerization shrinkage, thermal cycling problems. and wear in stress-bearing areas. On the other hand, Ceramic restorations have many advantages over resin restorations. Ceramic inlays are reported to have less leakage than resin restoration and to fit better. although marginal fidelity depends on technique and is laboratory dependent. Adhesion of luting resin is more reliable and durable to etched ceramic material than to treated resin composite. In view of color matching, periodontal health. resistance to abrasion, ceramic restoration is superior to resin restorationl. Materials which have been used for the fabrication of ceramic restorations are various. Conventional powder slurry ceramics are also available. Castable ceramics are produced by centrifugal casting of heat-treated glass ceramics. and machinable ceramics are feldspathic porcelains or cast glass ceramics which are milled using a CAD/CAM apparatus to produce inlays (for example, Cered. They may also be copy milled using the Celay apparatus. Pressable ceramics are produced from feldspathic porcelain which is supplied in ingot form and heated and moulded under pressure to produce a restoration. Infiltrated ceramics are another class of material which are available for use as ceramic inlays. An example is $In-Ceram^{\circledR}$(Vident. California, USA) which consists of a porous aluminum oxide or spinell core infiltrated with glass and subsequently veneered with feldspathic porcelain. In the 1980s. the development of compatible refractory materials made fabrication easier. and the development of adhesive resin cements greatly improved clinical success rates. This case report presents esthetic ceramic inlays for posterior teeth.teeth.