Production Engineering

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 239–246 | Cite as

Functional analyses to assess the effect of the curing process on the properties of light activated composites

  • A. Gloria
  • M. MartorelliEmail author
  • S. Gerbino
  • F. Tagliaferri
  • V. Kräusel
  • A. Lanzotti
Production Process


Light activated composites are the most popular choice in the field of dental restoration. They generally show internal stress even after a prolonged time period. The knowledge of mechanical properties and residual stress should provide interesting information on the clinical performance of such materials. Accordingly, in the current research experimental analyses were carried out to assess the effect of the curing process on the properties of one of the most commonly employed light activated dental composites (Gradia Direct—GC Corporation, Japan). At 10 min, 1 h and 24 h after light curing, the bending modulus (4.7–6.2 GPa) as well as the punching performance (peak load of 12.1–17.5 N) were evaluated for the micro-hybrid composite. Scanning electron microscopy also allowed to analyze the fracture surface. Residual stresses ranging from 0.67 ± 0.15 MPa to 1.12 ± 0.17 MPa were measured by means of the thin-ring-slitting approach reported in the literature, according to measurement time and cutting time.


Dental materials CAD/CAM system Mechanical and morphological properties Residual stress 



  1. 1.
    De Santis R, Gloria A, Maietta S, Martorelli M, De Luca A, Spagnuolo G, Riccitiello F, Rengo S (2018) Mechanical and thermal properties of dental composites cured with CAD/CAM assisted solid-state laser. Materials 11(4):504. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    De Santis R, Gloria A, Prisco D, Amendola E, Puppulin L, Pezzotti G, Rengo S, Ambrosio L, Nicolais L (2010) Fast curing of restorative materials through the soft light energy release. Dent Mater 26:891–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Versluis A, Tantbirojn D, Douglas WH (2004) Distribution of transient properties during polymerization of a light-initiated restorative composite. Dent Mater 20:543–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Versluis A, Tantbirojn D, Pintado MR, De Long R, Douglas WH (2004) Residual shrinkage stress distributions in molars after composite restoration. Dent Mater 20:554–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Davidson CL, de Gee AJ, Feilzer A (1984) The competition between the composite–dentin bond strength and the polymerization contraction stress. J Dent Res 63:1396–1399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eick JD, Welch FH (1986) Polymerization shrinkage of posterior composite resins and its possible influence on postoperative sensitivity. Quintessence Int 17:103–111Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ferracane JL, Mitchem JC (2003) Relationship between composite contraction stress and leakage in Class V cavities. Am J Dent 16:239–243Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Park JW, Ferracane JL (2006) Residual stress in composites with the thin-ring-slitting approach. J Dent Res 85(10):945–949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Uno S, Asmussen E (1991) Marginal adaptation of a restorative resin polymerized at reduced rate. Scand J Dent Res 99:440–444Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kemp-Scholte CK, Davidson CL (1990) Complete marginal seal of Class V resin composite restorations effected by increased flexibility. J Dent Res 69:1240–1243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Alkhiary YM, Morgano SM, Giordano RA (2003) Effect of acid hydrolysis and mechanical polishing on surface residual stresses of low-fusing dental ceramics. J Prosthet Dent 90:133–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Condon JR, Ferracane JL (1998) Reduction of composite contraction stress through non-bonded microfiller particles. Dent Mater 14:256–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Taskonak B, Mecholsky JJ Jr, Anusavice KJ (2005) Residual stresses in bilayer dental ceramics. Biomaterials 26:3235–3241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yoshikawa T, Burrow MF, Tagami J (2001) The effects of bonding system and light curing method on reducing stress of different C factor cavities. J Adhes Dent 3:177–183Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Braga RR, Hilton TJ, Ferracane JL (2003) Contraction stress of flowable composite materials and their efficacy as stress-relieving layers. J Am Dent Assoc 134:721–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ferracane JL (2005) Developing a more complete understanding of stresses produced in dental composites during polymerization. Dent Mater 21:36–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Witzel MF, Calheiros FC, Goncalves F, Kawano Y, Braga RR (2005) Influence of photoactivation method on conversion, mechanical properties, degradation in ethanol and contraction stress of resin based materials. J Dent 33:773–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lu J (1996) Introduction. In: Lu J (ed) Handbook of measurement of residual stress. The Fairmont Press Inc., Lilburn, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nairn JA (2004) Residual stress effects in fracture of composites and adhesives. In: Moore DR (ed) The application of fracture mechanics to polymers, adhesives and composites. Elsevier, Kidlington, pp 193–200Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Seif MA, Short SR (2002) Determination of residual stresses in thin-walled composite cylinders. Exp Tech 26:43–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Park JW, Ferracane JL (2005) Measuring the residual stress in dental composites using a ring slitting method. Dent Mater 21:882–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    De Santis R, Russo T, Gloria A (2018) An analysis on the potential of diode-pumped solid-state lasers for dental materials. Mater Sci Eng C 92:862–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Russo T, Gloria A, D’Antò V, D’Amora U, Ametrano G, Bollino F, De Santis R, Ausanio G, Catauro M, Rengo S (2010) Poly(ε-caprolactone) reinforced with sol–gel synthesized organic–inorganic hybrid fillers as composite substrates for tissue engineering. J Appl Biomater Biomech 8:146Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gloria A, Russo T, D’Amora U, Zeppetelli S, D’Alessandro T, Sandri M, Banobre-Lopez M, Pineiro-Redondo Y, Uhlarz M, Tampieri A et al (2013) Magnetic poly(ε-caprolactone)/iron-doped hydroxyapatite nanocomposite substrates for advanced bone tissue engineering. J R Soc Interface 10:20120833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Santis R, Gloria A, Russo T, D’Amora U, D’Antò V, Bollino F, Catauro M, Mollica F, Rengo S, Ambrosio L (2013) Advanced composites for hard-tissue engineering based on PCL/organic-inorganic hybrid fillers: from the design of 2D substrates to 3D rapid prototyped scaffolds. Polym Compos 34:1413–1417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Montgomery DC (2017) Design and analysis of experiments. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wilson PD, Wilson N, Dunne S (2018) Manual of clinical procedures in dentistry. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© German Academic Society for Production Engineering (WGP) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Gloria
    • 1
  • M. Martorelli
    • 2
    Email author
  • S. Gerbino
    • 3
  • F. Tagliaferri
    • 4
  • V. Kräusel
    • 5
  • A. Lanzotti
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Polymers, Composites and BiomaterialsNational Research Council of ItalyNaplesItaly
  2. 2.Department of Industrial EngineeringFraunhofer JL IDEAS, University of Naples Federico IINaplesItaly
  3. 3.Department of EngineeringUniversity of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”AversaItaly
  4. 4.Niccolò Cusano UniversityRomeItaly
  5. 5.Institute for Machine Tools and Production ProcessesChemnitz University of TechnologyChemnitzGermany

Personalised recommendations