Comparison of volumetric shrinkage of composite resin nanoceramic and nanofiller

Bani Imran Masulili; Endang Suprastiwi; Dewa Ayu Nyoman Putri Artiningsih; Caterin Novista

doi:10.22159/ijap.2020.v12s2.OP-02

Comparison of volumetric shrinkage of composite resin nanoceramic and nanofiller

Bani Imran Masulili, Endang Suprastiwi, Dewa Ayu Nyoman Putri Artiningsih, Caterin Novista

Department of Conservative Dentistry

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

Objective: The main cause of failure of composite resin restorations is volumetric shrinkage. The aim of this study was to analyze and compare volumetric shrinkage in nanohybrid and nanoceramic composite resins. Methods: A total of 32 (3 cm×3 cm× 2 mm) cavities were analyzed for volume using micro-CT. The samples were divided randomly into two groups: 16 cavities that were restored using nanohybrid composite resin and 16 cavities that were restored using nanoceramic composite resin. The composite resin volume was analyzed using micro-CT. Results: The difference in volumetric shrinkage between nanohybrid composite resin 245,866.5 mm³ (3%) and nanoceramic composite resin 3,470,175.13 mm³ (5%) was not significant (p=0.585). Conclusion: Nanohybrid and nanoceramic composite resins have the same volumetric shrinkage rate.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	1-3
Number of pages	3
Journal	International Journal of Applied Pharmaceutics
Volume	12
Issue number	Special Issue 2
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.22159/ijap.2020.v12s2.OP-02
Publication status	Published - Jul 2020

Keywords

Composite resin
Nanoceramic
Nanohybrid
Volumetric shrinkage

Access to Document

10.22159/ijap.2020.v12s2.OP-02

Cite this

@article{6b139f44d4a84cf79d94503bca8b0738,

title = "Comparison of volumetric shrinkage of composite resin nanoceramic and nanofiller",

abstract = "Objective: The main cause of failure of composite resin restorations is volumetric shrinkage. The aim of this study was to analyze and compare volumetric shrinkage in nanohybrid and nanoceramic composite resins. Methods: A total of 32 (3 cm×3 cm× 2 mm) cavities were analyzed for volume using micro-CT. The samples were divided randomly into two groups: 16 cavities that were restored using nanohybrid composite resin and 16 cavities that were restored using nanoceramic composite resin. The composite resin volume was analyzed using micro-CT. Results: The difference in volumetric shrinkage between nanohybrid composite resin 245,866.5 mm3 (3%) and nanoceramic composite resin 3,470,175.13 mm3 (5%) was not significant (p=0.585). Conclusion: Nanohybrid and nanoceramic composite resins have the same volumetric shrinkage rate.",

keywords = "Composite resin, Nanoceramic, Nanohybrid, Volumetric shrinkage",

author = "Masulili, {Bani Imran} and Endang Suprastiwi and Artiningsih, {Dewa Ayu Nyoman Putri} and Caterin Novista",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2020 The Authors.",

year = "2020",

month = jul,

doi = "10.22159/ijap.2020.v12s2.OP-02",

language = "English",

volume = "12",

pages = "1--3",

journal = "International Journal of Applied Pharmaceutics",

issn = "0975-7058",

publisher = "International Journal of Applied Pharmaceutics",

number = "Special Issue 2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of volumetric shrinkage of composite resin nanoceramic and nanofiller

AU - Masulili, Bani Imran

AU - Suprastiwi, Endang

AU - Artiningsih, Dewa Ayu Nyoman Putri

AU - Novista, Caterin

PY - 2020/7

Y1 - 2020/7

N2 - Objective: The main cause of failure of composite resin restorations is volumetric shrinkage. The aim of this study was to analyze and compare volumetric shrinkage in nanohybrid and nanoceramic composite resins. Methods: A total of 32 (3 cm×3 cm× 2 mm) cavities were analyzed for volume using micro-CT. The samples were divided randomly into two groups: 16 cavities that were restored using nanohybrid composite resin and 16 cavities that were restored using nanoceramic composite resin. The composite resin volume was analyzed using micro-CT. Results: The difference in volumetric shrinkage between nanohybrid composite resin 245,866.5 mm3 (3%) and nanoceramic composite resin 3,470,175.13 mm3 (5%) was not significant (p=0.585). Conclusion: Nanohybrid and nanoceramic composite resins have the same volumetric shrinkage rate.

AB - Objective: The main cause of failure of composite resin restorations is volumetric shrinkage. The aim of this study was to analyze and compare volumetric shrinkage in nanohybrid and nanoceramic composite resins. Methods: A total of 32 (3 cm×3 cm× 2 mm) cavities were analyzed for volume using micro-CT. The samples were divided randomly into two groups: 16 cavities that were restored using nanohybrid composite resin and 16 cavities that were restored using nanoceramic composite resin. The composite resin volume was analyzed using micro-CT. Results: The difference in volumetric shrinkage between nanohybrid composite resin 245,866.5 mm3 (3%) and nanoceramic composite resin 3,470,175.13 mm3 (5%) was not significant (p=0.585). Conclusion: Nanohybrid and nanoceramic composite resins have the same volumetric shrinkage rate.

KW - Composite resin

KW - Nanoceramic

KW - Nanohybrid

KW - Volumetric shrinkage

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85090669745&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.22159/ijap.2020.v12s2.OP-02

DO - 10.22159/ijap.2020.v12s2.OP-02

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85090669745

SN - 0975-7058

VL - 12

SP - 1

EP - 3

JO - International Journal of Applied Pharmaceutics

JF - International Journal of Applied Pharmaceutics

IS - Special Issue 2

ER -

Comparison of volumetric shrinkage of composite resin nanoceramic and nanofiller

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this