Bisphenol A-glycidyl methacrylate (bis-GMA) and urethane dimethacrylate (UDMA) are usually combined with low-viscosity monomers to obtain more desirable viscosity, handling characteristics and general properties. The present study determined the flexural strength (FS), flexural modulus (FM), diametral tensile strength (DTS), and hardness (HV) of five matrices and composites based on these resins. The polymerization shrinkage stress (PSS) was also studied for the composites. The polymer matrices were formed using bis-GMA and UDMA. TEGDMA, HEMA and HDDMA acted as co-monomers. The composites had 45 wt.% of filler content. The highest FS and FM were obtained from the UDMA/bis-GMA/TEGDMA/HEMA matrix and the composite (matrix + filler). The best DTS values were obtained from the UDMA/bis-GMA/HEMA matrix and the composite. One of the lowest values of FS, FM, and DTS was obtained from the UDMA/bis-GMA/HDDMA matrix and the composite. All the composites demonstrated similar hardness values. The lowest polymerization shrinkage stress was observed for the UDMA/bis-GMA/TEGDMA/HEMA composite, and the highest PSS was observed for the UDMA/bis-GMA/TEGDMA/HDDMA composite. The addition of HEMA had a positive effect on the properties of the tested materials, which may be related to the improved mobility of the bis-GMA and UDMA monomers.

The contraction stress generated during the photopolymerization of resin dental composites is the major disadvantage. The water sorption in the oral environment should counteract the contraction stress. The purpose was to evaluate the influence of the water sorption of composite materials on polymerization shrinkage stress generated at the restoration-tooth interface. The following materials were tested: Filtek Ultimate, Gradia Direct LoFlo, Heliomolar Flow, Tetric EvoCeram, Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill, Tetric EvoFlow, Tetric EvoFlow Bulk Fill, X-tra Base, Venus BulkFil, and Ceram.X One. The shrinkage stress was measured immediately after curing and after: 0.5 h, 24 h, 72 h, 96 h, 168 h, 240 h, 336 h, 504 h, 672 h, and 1344 h by means of photoelastic study. Moreover, water sorption and solubility were evaluated. Material samples were weighted on scale in time intervals to measure the water absorbency and the dynamic of this process. The tested materials during polymerization generated shrinkage stresses ranging from 6.3 MPa to 12.5 MPa. Upon water conditioning (56 days), the decrease in shrinkage strain (not less than 48%) was observed. The decrease in value stress in time is material-dependent.

Aim of the study was to evaluate the influence of filler amounts on mechanical properties and contraction stress of light-curing experimental composite. Hardness, flexural strength, diametral tensile strength of material filled with 40, 50 or 60 wt. % of silanized silica were tested. The contraction stress was measured after 24 h by means of photoelastic study. The addition of 40-60 wt. % filler to composite caused significant increase in hardness, Young’s modulus and flexural strength. The DTS , after incorporating filler into polymer matrix, was valued at ~26 MPa. The composite containing 40 wt. % of filler demonstrated significantly lower contraction stress in comparison to neat resin and filled > 50 wt. % of silica.

The aim of this article was to compare the biomechanical properties of commercial composites containing different photoinitiators: Filtek Ultimate (3M ESPE) containing camphorquinone (CQ); Estelite Σ Quick (Tokuyama Dental) with CQ in RAP Technology^®; Tetric EvoCeram Bleach BLXL (Ivoclar Vivadent AG) with CQ and Lucirin TPO; and Tetric Evoceram Powerfill IVB (Ivoclar Vivadent AG) with CQ and Ivocerin TPO. All samples were cured with a polywave Valo Lamp (Ultradent Products Inc.) with 1450 mW/cm². The microhardness, hardness by Vicker’s method, diametral tensile strength, flexural strength and contraction stress with photoelastic analysis were tested. The highest hardness and microhardness were observed for Filtek Ultimate (93.82 ± 17.44 HV), but other composites also displayed sufficient values (from 52 ± 3.92 to 58,82 ± 7.33 HV). Filtek Ultimate not only demonstrated the highest DTS (48.03 ± 5.97 MPa) and FS (87.32 ± 19.03 MPa) but also the highest contraction stress (13.7 ± 0.4 MPa) during polymerization. The TetricEvoCeram Powerfill has optimal microhardness (54.27 ± 4.1 HV), DTS (32.5 ± 5.29 MPa) and FS (79.3 ± 14.37 MPa) and the lowest contraction stress (7.4 ± 1 MPa) during photopolymerization. To summarize, Filtek Ultimate demonstrated the highest microhardness, FS and DTS values; however, composites with additional photoinitiators such as Lucirin TPO and Ivocerin have the lowest polymerization shrinkage. These composites also have higher FS and DTS and microhardness than material containing CQ in Rap Technology.

Pathological tooth wear is an escalating social problem. Occlusal veneers can be an alternative to traditional prosthetic restorations such as crowns, inlays, and onlays. Background: The aim of this study is to assess the fracture resistance of occlusal veneers made of various materials depending on their thickness. Methods: In total, 120 occlusal veneers were examined. The restorations were made of four ceramics: leucite LC (IPS Empress Esthetic), hybrid HC (Vita Enamic), lithium disilicate LDC (IPS e.max Press), and zirconium oxide ZOC (Ceramill Zolid HT). A total of 30 veneers were made of each material, 10 for each of the three thicknesses: 1 mm, 1.5 mm, 2 mm. The restorations were cemented on identical abutments duplicated from the developed phantom tooth 35 (KaVo) with composite cement (All Bond Universal). The samples prepared in this way were subjected to a compressive strength test in a universal testing machine. Statistical analysis of the results was performed. Results: The average fracture resistance of occlusal veneers made of zirconium oxide ceramic was 1086–1640 N, of lithium disilicate ceramics 456–1044 N, of hybrid ceramics 449–576 N, and of leucite ceramics 257–499 N. Conclusions: Occlusal veneers made of ceramics, zirconium oxide and lithium disilicate, had the highest resistance to fractures. Restorations made of leucite ceramics turned out to be the least resistant to forces. The greater the thickness of the ceramic occlusal veneers, the greater their fracture resistance.

The long-term success of a composite restoration largely depends on its smoothness, which can be achieved by the appropriate polishing tools and material selection. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the surface roughness of two composite materials after the application of selected polishing systems. Filtek Ultimate (FU) and Filtek Z250 (FZ) were tested. Forty specimens of each material were prepared. After polymerization under a Mylar strip, the surface roughness of five samples from each group was measured. Subsequently, all specimens were ground by 600 grit sandpaper. The surface roughness of five samples per group was tested again. The samples from each group were randomly assigned to eight subgroups, and polished by Sof-Lex, Sof-Lex Diamond Polishing System, Super Snap, One Gloss, Astrobrush, Stainbuster, Enamel Shiny, and Jiffy Polishing System. The collected data were analyzed using the Shapiro–Wilk and Kruskal–Wallis tests. The lowest Ra coefficient after polishing is found in the Super Snap groups (FU—0.077 μm, FZ—0.085 μm). The lowest Rlr coefficient is measured in the Enamel Shiny group for FU (1.000), and for Sof-Lex, Sof-Lex Diamond Polishing System, and Jiffy Polishing Kit for FZ (1.001), and only slightly higher for Super Snap (FU—1.001, FZ—1.002). The roughest-measured surface is in the One Gloss group for FU (Ra—0.657 µm, Rlr—1.009), and Astrobrush group for FZ (Ra—0.525 μm, Rlr—0.011). Additionally, it was not confirmed that the nanoparticle material (FU) demonstrates better results than the microhybrid one (FZ). Different polishing systems produce varying surface roughness. The most effective polishing system is Super Snap. The structure of composites does not significantly affect their surface roughness after polishing.