Polymerization stress, shrinkage and elastic modulus of current low-shrinkage restorative composites

ObjectiveTo compare currently available low-shrinkage composites with others regarding polymerization stress, volumetric shrinkage (total and post-gel), shrinkage rate and elastic modulus.MethodsSeven BisGMA-based composites (Durafill/DU, Filtek Z250/FZ, Heliomolar/HM, Aelite LS Posterior/AP, Point 4/P4, Filtek Supreme/SU, ELS/EL), a silorane-based (Filtek LS, LS), a urethane-based (Venus Diamond, VD) and one based on a dimethacrylate-derivative of dimer acid (N′Durance, ND) were tested. Polymerization stress was determined in 1-mm high specimens inserted between two PMMA rods attached to a universal testing machine. Total volumetric shrinkage was measured using a mercury dilatometer. Maximum shrinkage rate was used as a parameter of the reaction speed. Post-gel shrinkage was measured using strain-gages. Elastic modulus was obtained by three-point bending. Data were submitted to one-way ANOVA/Tukey test (p = 0.05), except for elastic modulus (Kruskal–Wallis).ResultsComposites ranked differently for total and post-gel shrinkage. Among the materials considered as “low-shrinkage” by the respective manufacturers, LS, EL and VD presented low post-gel shrinkage, while AP and ND presented relatively high values. Polymerization stress showed a strong correlation with post-gel shrinkage except for LS, which presented high stress. Elastic modulus and shrinkage rate showed weak relationships with polymerization stress.SignificanceNot all low-shrinkage composites demonstrated reduced polymerization shrinkage. Also, in order to effectively reduce polymerization stress, a low post-gel shrinkage must be associated to a relatively low elastic modulus.