The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of instrument compliance on the polymerization shrinkage stress measurements of dental composites. The contraction strain and stress of composites during light curing were measured by a custom made stress-strain analyzer, which consisted of a displacement sensor, a cantilever load cell and a negative feedback mechanism. The instrument can measure the polymerization stress by two modes: with compliance mode in which the instrument compliance is allowed, or without compliance mode in which the instrument compliance is not allowed.

A flowable (Filtek Flow: FF) and two universal hybrid (Z100: Z1 and Z250: Z2) composites were studied. A silane treated metal rod with a diameter of 3.0 mm was fixed at free end of the load cell, and other metal rod was fixed on the base plate. Composite of 1.0 mm thickness was placed between the two rods and light cured. The axial shrinkage strain and stress of the composite were recorded for 10 minutes during polymerization, and the tensile modulus of the materials was also determined with the instrument. The statistical analysis was conducted by ANOVA, paired t-test and Tukey's test (α<0.05).

There were significant differences between the two measurement modes and among materials. With compliance mode, the contraction stress of FF was the highest: 3.11 (0.13), followed by Z1: 2.91 (0.10) and Z2: 1.94 (0.09) MPa. When the instrument compliance is not allowed, the contraction stress of Z1 was the highest: 17.08 (0.89), followed by FF: 10.11 (0.29) and Z2: 9.46 (1.63) MPa. The tensile modulus for Z1, Z2 and FF was 2.31 (0.18), 2.05 (0.20), 1.41 (0.11) GPa, respectively. With compliance mode, the measured stress correlated with the axial shrinkage strain of composite; while without compliance the elastic modulus of materials played a significant role in the stress measurement.

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™ Multi-purpose and Xeno®III) and iris hole diameters (volume; 1 mm or 3 mm in diameter × 1.5 mm in thickness). Ninety-six molars were randomly divided into 8 groups (2 × 2 × 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.

The purpose of present study was to evaluate the polymerization shrinkage stress and cuspal deflection in maxillary premolars resulting from polymerization shrinkage of composites and compomers.

Composites and compomers which were used in this study were as follows: Dyract AP, Z100, Surefil, Pyramid, Synergy Compact, Heliomolar, Heliomolar HB, and Compoglass F. For measuring of polymerization shrinkage stress, Stress measuring machine (R&B, Daejon, Korea) was used. One-way ANOVA analysis with Duncan's multiple comparison test were used to determine significant differences between the materials.

For measuring of cuspal deflection of tooth, MOD cavities were prepared in 10 extracted maxillary premolars. And reduction of intercuspal distance was measured by strain measuring machine (R&B, Daejon, Korea) One-way ANOVA analysis with Turkey test were used to determine significant differences between the materials.

Polymerization shrinkage stress is 『Heliomolar, Z100, Pyramid < Synergy Compact Compoglass F < Dyract AP < Heliomolr HB, surefil』 (P < 0.05). And cuspal delfelction is 『Z100, Heliomolar, Heliomolar HB, Synergy Compact Surefil, < Compoglass F < Pyramid, Dyract AP』 (P < 0.05).

Measurements of ploymerization shrinkage stress and those of cuspal deflection of the teeth was different. There is no correlation between polymerization shrinkage stress and cuspal deflection of the teeth (p > 0.05).

The purpose of present study was to evaluate the polymerization shrinkage stress and amount of linear shrinkage of composites and compomers for posterior restoration.

For this purpose, linear polymerization shrinkage and polymerization stress were measured.

For linear polymerization shrinklage and polymerization stress measurement, custom made Linometer (R&B, Daejon, Korea) and Stress measuring machine was used (R&B, Daejon, Korea). Compositers and compomers were evaluated; Dyract AP (Dentsply Detrey, Gumbh. German) Z100 (3M Dental Products, St. Paul, USA) Surefil (Dentsply Caulk, Milford, USA) Pyramid(Bisco, Schaumburg, USA) Synergy Compact (Coltene, Altstatten, Switzerland), Heliomolar (Vivadent/Ivoclar, Liechtenstein), and Compoglass (Vivadent Ivoclar/Liechtenstein) were used. 15 measurements were made for each material. Linear polymerization shrinkage or polymerization stress for each material was compared with one way ANOVA with Tukey at 95% levels of confidence.

For linear shrinkage; Heliomolar, Surefil<Synergy Compact, Z100<Dyract AP<Pyramid, Compoglass F (p<0.05)

For Shrinkage stress; Heliomolar<Z100, Pyramid<Synergy Compact, Compoglass F<Dyract AP<Heliomolar HB, Surefil (p<0.05)