Comparison of two video-imaging instruments for measuring volumetric shrinkage of dental resin composites

Amer Tiba, David G. Charlton, Kraig S. Vandewalle, James Ragain

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

18 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to measure the polymerization shrinkage of three dental resin composites using two commercially available video-imaging devices to determine if the devices produced equivalent results. Methods: Small, semi-spherical specimens of a microhybrid (Venus), microfill (Filtek A110), and flowable (Esthet•X Flow) resin composite were manually formed and light activated for 40 s using a light-curing unit. The volumetric polymerization shrinkage of fifteen specimens of each brand of resin composite was measured using the AcuVol and the Drop Shape Analysis System model DSA10 Mk2 (DSAS) video-imaging devices. Mean volumetric shrinkage values were calculated for each resin composite and equivalence was evaluated using the two one-sided tests approach. Differences between the means that were less than approximately 5% of the observed shrinkage were considered indicative of clinical equivalence. Results: Mean volumetric shrinkage values measured for the resin composites were: Venus (AcuVol, 3.07±0.07%; DSAS, 2.90±0.07%); Filtek A110 (AcuVol, 2.26±0.10%; DSAS, 2.25±0.09%); and Esthet•X Flow (AcuVol, 5.01±0.17%; DSAS, 5.14±0.11%). Statistical analysis revealed that the two imaging devices produced equivalent results for Filtek A110 and Esthet•X Flow but not for Venus. Conclusions: Video-imaging systems provide an easy method for measuring volumetric shrinkage of resin composites. As with other methods for measuring volumetric shrinkage, however, they are best used to comparatively measure different materials within the same laboratory.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)757-763
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Dentistry
Volume33
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2005
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Composite Resins
Venus
Equipment and Supplies
Polymerization
Light
Composite Dental Resin
Filtek A110 composite resin

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Comparison of two video-imaging instruments for measuring volumetric shrinkage of dental resin composites. / Tiba, Amer; Charlton, David G.; Vandewalle, Kraig S.; Ragain, James.

In: Journal of Dentistry, Vol. 33, No. 9, 01.10.2005, p. 757-763.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Tiba, Amer ; Charlton, David G. ; Vandewalle, Kraig S. ; Ragain, James. / Comparison of two video-imaging instruments for measuring volumetric shrinkage of dental resin composites. In: Journal of Dentistry. 2005 ; Vol. 33, No. 9. pp. 757-763.
@article{a05d5179f8594872b5d8e1ae67bd5d91,
title = "Comparison of two video-imaging instruments for measuring volumetric shrinkage of dental resin composites",
abstract = "Objectives: The purpose of this study was to measure the polymerization shrinkage of three dental resin composites using two commercially available video-imaging devices to determine if the devices produced equivalent results. Methods: Small, semi-spherical specimens of a microhybrid (Venus), microfill (Filtek A110), and flowable (Esthet•X Flow) resin composite were manually formed and light activated for 40 s using a light-curing unit. The volumetric polymerization shrinkage of fifteen specimens of each brand of resin composite was measured using the AcuVol and the Drop Shape Analysis System model DSA10 Mk2 (DSAS) video-imaging devices. Mean volumetric shrinkage values were calculated for each resin composite and equivalence was evaluated using the two one-sided tests approach. Differences between the means that were less than approximately 5{\%} of the observed shrinkage were considered indicative of clinical equivalence. Results: Mean volumetric shrinkage values measured for the resin composites were: Venus (AcuVol, 3.07±0.07{\%}; DSAS, 2.90±0.07{\%}); Filtek A110 (AcuVol, 2.26±0.10{\%}; DSAS, 2.25±0.09{\%}); and Esthet•X Flow (AcuVol, 5.01±0.17{\%}; DSAS, 5.14±0.11{\%}). Statistical analysis revealed that the two imaging devices produced equivalent results for Filtek A110 and Esthet•X Flow but not for Venus. Conclusions: Video-imaging systems provide an easy method for measuring volumetric shrinkage of resin composites. As with other methods for measuring volumetric shrinkage, however, they are best used to comparatively measure different materials within the same laboratory.",
author = "Amer Tiba and Charlton, {David G.} and Vandewalle, {Kraig S.} and James Ragain",
year = "2005",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jdent.2005.02.004",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "33",
pages = "757--763",
journal = "Journal of Dentistry",
issn = "0300-5712",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of two video-imaging instruments for measuring volumetric shrinkage of dental resin composites

AU - Tiba, Amer

AU - Charlton, David G.

AU - Vandewalle, Kraig S.

AU - Ragain, James

PY - 2005/10/1

Y1 - 2005/10/1

N2 - Objectives: The purpose of this study was to measure the polymerization shrinkage of three dental resin composites using two commercially available video-imaging devices to determine if the devices produced equivalent results. Methods: Small, semi-spherical specimens of a microhybrid (Venus), microfill (Filtek A110), and flowable (Esthet•X Flow) resin composite were manually formed and light activated for 40 s using a light-curing unit. The volumetric polymerization shrinkage of fifteen specimens of each brand of resin composite was measured using the AcuVol and the Drop Shape Analysis System model DSA10 Mk2 (DSAS) video-imaging devices. Mean volumetric shrinkage values were calculated for each resin composite and equivalence was evaluated using the two one-sided tests approach. Differences between the means that were less than approximately 5% of the observed shrinkage were considered indicative of clinical equivalence. Results: Mean volumetric shrinkage values measured for the resin composites were: Venus (AcuVol, 3.07±0.07%; DSAS, 2.90±0.07%); Filtek A110 (AcuVol, 2.26±0.10%; DSAS, 2.25±0.09%); and Esthet•X Flow (AcuVol, 5.01±0.17%; DSAS, 5.14±0.11%). Statistical analysis revealed that the two imaging devices produced equivalent results for Filtek A110 and Esthet•X Flow but not for Venus. Conclusions: Video-imaging systems provide an easy method for measuring volumetric shrinkage of resin composites. As with other methods for measuring volumetric shrinkage, however, they are best used to comparatively measure different materials within the same laboratory.

AB - Objectives: The purpose of this study was to measure the polymerization shrinkage of three dental resin composites using two commercially available video-imaging devices to determine if the devices produced equivalent results. Methods: Small, semi-spherical specimens of a microhybrid (Venus), microfill (Filtek A110), and flowable (Esthet•X Flow) resin composite were manually formed and light activated for 40 s using a light-curing unit. The volumetric polymerization shrinkage of fifteen specimens of each brand of resin composite was measured using the AcuVol and the Drop Shape Analysis System model DSA10 Mk2 (DSAS) video-imaging devices. Mean volumetric shrinkage values were calculated for each resin composite and equivalence was evaluated using the two one-sided tests approach. Differences between the means that were less than approximately 5% of the observed shrinkage were considered indicative of clinical equivalence. Results: Mean volumetric shrinkage values measured for the resin composites were: Venus (AcuVol, 3.07±0.07%; DSAS, 2.90±0.07%); Filtek A110 (AcuVol, 2.26±0.10%; DSAS, 2.25±0.09%); and Esthet•X Flow (AcuVol, 5.01±0.17%; DSAS, 5.14±0.11%). Statistical analysis revealed that the two imaging devices produced equivalent results for Filtek A110 and Esthet•X Flow but not for Venus. Conclusions: Video-imaging systems provide an easy method for measuring volumetric shrinkage of resin composites. As with other methods for measuring volumetric shrinkage, however, they are best used to comparatively measure different materials within the same laboratory.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=26044459155&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=26044459155&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jdent.2005.02.004

DO - 10.1016/j.jdent.2005.02.004

M3 - Article

VL - 33

SP - 757

EP - 763

JO - Journal of Dentistry

JF - Journal of Dentistry

SN - 0300-5712

IS - 9

ER -