Journal of Investigative and Clinical Dentistry (2014), 5, 1–5

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Dental Materials Science

Effect of configuration factor on gap formation in hybrid

composite resin, low-shrinkage composite resin and
resin-modified glass ionomer
Parvin M. Boroujeni, Sayyed M. Mousavinasab & Elham Hasanli
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Islamic Azad University Khorasgan Branch, Isfahan, Iran

Keywords
configuration factor, gap formation, glass
ionomer, resin composite.
Correspondence
Elham Hasanli, Department of Restorative
Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Islamic Azad
University Khorasgan Branch, Isfahan, Iran.
Tel: +98-917-3033708
Fax: +98-311-5354053
Email: Dr.Hasanli@yahoo.com
Received 25 April 2013; revised 2 August
2013; accepted 3 November 2013.
doi: 10.1111/jicd.12082
Abstract
Aim: Polymerization shrinkage is one of the important factors in creation of
gap between dental structure and composite resin restorations. The aim of this
study was to evaluate the effect of configuration factor (C-factor) on gap for-
mation in a hybrid composite resin, a low shrinkage composite resin and a
resin modified glass ionomer restorative material.
Methods: Cylindrical dentin cavities with 5.0 mm diameter and three different
depths (1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 mm) were prepared on the occlusal surface of 99 human
molars and the cavities assigned into three groups (each of 33). Each group con-
tained three subgroups depend on the different depths and then cavities restored
using resin modified glass ionomer (Fuji II LC Improved) and two type compos-
ite resins (Filtek P90 and Filtek Z250). Then the restorations were cut into two
sections in a mesiodistal direction in the middle of restorations. Gaps were mea-
sured on mesial, distal and pulpal floor of the cavities, using a stereomicroscope.
Results: Data analyses using Kruskal–Wallist and Mann–Whitney tests. Increas-
ing C-factor from 1.8 to 3.4 had no effect on the gap formation in two type
composite resins, but Fuji II LC Improved showed significant effect of increas-
ing C-factor on gap formation. Taken together, when C-factor increased from
1.8 up to 3.4 had no significant effect on gap formation in two tested resin
composites. Although, Filtek P90 restorations showed smaller gap formation in
cavities walls compared to Filtek Z250 restorations.
Conclusions: High C-factor values generated the largest gap formation. Silorane-
based composite was more efficient for cavity sealing than methacrylate-based
composites and resin modified glass ionomer.

rylate monomers in polymer matrices and establish a

Introduction
The mechanical characteristics of light-curing resin com-
posites are responsible for their utilization in both ante-
rior and posterior restorations. Nevertheless, one of the
problems that could intervene with their clinical imple-
mentation is the shrinkage stress made during their poly-
merization reaction.1 The gap between methacrylate
monomers present in polymeric matrices (by Van der
Waals attraction forces) are 0.3–0.4 nm. Rupture of the
double carbon bonds of methacrylate monomers would
lead to reduction of the gap maintained between methac-
0.15 nm gap (long covalent bonds).2 As a result, the
material undergoes a reduction in volume, which can be
construed as densification.3 The polymerization shrinkage
could lead to gap formation, fluid infiltration and bacte-
rial presence at the tooth–composite interface and to
postoperative sensitivity.4,5 Variables, such as resin mono-
mer, type and concentration of filler particles, and photo-
initiators, affect this process.6 The cavity shape is a
significant criteria in conserving the composite–dentin
bond.1 Feilzer and others established the configuration-
factor concept (C-factor: bonded to unbounded surfaces

ª 2014 Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd 1

Configuration factor effect on gap formation
ratio), and it was considered that in most of the clinically
relevant cavity configurations, stress-release flow is not
sufficient to preserve adhesion to dentin by dentin-bond-
ing agents.7 Considering the importance of the multifac-
torial prospect of the polymerization shrinkage process,
the current study investigated the influence of the C-fac-
tor on restoration interface sealing in a hybrid composite
resin, a low-shrinkage composite resin and a resin-modi-
fied glass ionomer. Therefore, the null hypothesis in this
study was increasing the C-factor has an equal effect on
gap formation in the three restorative materials and also
an equal effect on gap formation in different walls.
Materials and methods
Two commercially marketed resin composites, chosen in
accordance with their different types of matrix, were
tested: a microfilled hybrid resin composite (Z250; 3M
ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA), a low-shrinkage siloran-based
resin composite (P90; 3M ESPE), and a resin-modified
glass ionomer (Fuji II LC Improved GC, Tokyo, Japan).
All the specimens in the current study were light cured
with a light-emitting diode (LED) unit (Dentamerical;
Litex695, Taipei, Taiwan) for 20 sec. Light intensity was
calibrated at 1000 mw/cm2 with a radiometer (Demetron-
Inc, Danbury, CT, USA) and after curing of each specimen
the light intensity was counted by that radiometer.
Selection and preparation of teeth and restorative
procedure
Ninety-nine caries-free human molars were collected dur-
ing 2 weeks and stored in 0.5% chloramines solution and
randomly divided into three groups of 33 each. All the
occlusal surfaces were wet ground in a polishing machine
with 150- and 600-grit SiC papers (Sof-Lex discs; 3M ESPE)
until flat dentin surfaces were acquired. The roots were
fixed in polyester resin inside PVC cylinders (1.5 mm in
diameter) with the flat dentin planes parallel to the top
surfaces. The cylinders were stabilized in a special sample-
aligning device, and cylindrical class I cavities 5.0 mm in
diameter having three different depths (1.0, 2.0 and
3.0 mm) were produced in all flat dentin surfaces with a
diamond bur (#4054; KG Sorensen, SP, Brasilia, Brazil) in a
high-speed handpiece. Each bur was used for preparing five
cavities: the cavity depths were controlled by using a digital
caliper (MPI/E-101; Mitutoyo, Tokyo, Japan). The C-factor
was attaining by using the C-factor = ((2prh) + pr2)/pr2
formula. Where r is the cavity radius and h is the cavity
depth. Therefore, the C-factor for the three different pre-
pared designed depths were 1.8, 2.6, and 3.4 respectively.
Thirty-three cavities (11 from C-factor =1.8, 11 from
C-factor = 2.6 and 11 from C-factor = 3.4) were restored
2 ª 2014 Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd
P. M. Boroujeni et al.
in bulk with Filtek P90. The second 33 cavities were
restored in bulk with Filtek Z250 and the last 33 cavities were
restored in bulk with Fuji II LC Improved, in accordance
with the manufacturer’s instructions. The materials to
be cured were covered with a polyester strip and light-
cured with a LED unit (Dentamerical) for 20 sec and
light intensity was calibrated at 1000 mw/cm2. Nine
experimental groups, in accordance with materials and
C-factor, were produced (n = 11). After storing the
samples in distilled water (37°C/24 h) the restorations
were cut into two sections in a mesiodistal direction in
the middle of restorations using a diamond disk (Vafaei
Industrial, Veluna Park Industrial Devices, Tehran, Iran).
During cutting with the diamond disk a water-coolant
stream was applied.
Gap measurement and statistical analysis
The cross-cut surfaces of the restorations were observed
using a high-resolution stereomicroscope (Olympus/
SZX9, Tokyo, Japan). This method has an advantage in
avoiding the necessity of desiccating the specimens,
which may lead to separation of the bonding due to the
contraction of the tooth substrate. Gap widths were
measured on mesial, distal, and pulpal floor of the cavi-
ties at 9600 magnification (Figure 1). Data analysis was
carried out using Kruskal–Wallistand and Mann–Whit-
ney tests (P < 0.05).
Results
The results are shown in Figures 2 and 3. Increasing the
C-factor from 1.8 to 3.4 had no effect on gap formation
in the two types of resin composites tested, but in Fuji
II LC Improved there was a significant effect of C-factor
Figure 1. Representative images of the cross-cut surface (Fuji II LC
Improved, cavity floor). The top-right image is at 9600 magnification.
P. M. Boroujeni et al. Configuration factor effect on gap formation

Discussion
For evaluation of the interface, various techniques have
been applied. In this study, the cross-cut surface of the
restorations was observed using a high-resolution stereo-
microscope. This method has an advantage in avoiding
the necessity of desiccating the specimens, which may lead
to separation of the bonding due to the contraction of
the tooth substrate. On the other hand, cutting process
has been accomplished under a flow of water.
The results of the present study showed that there was
no difference in gap sized formed between a low-shrink-
age composite and hybrid resin composite with increasing
C-factor, but in resin modified glass ionomer there was
shown significant effect of C-factor changes on gap
formation (P < 0.05).
Figure 2. Mean gap width for different C-factor values and restor-
Despite innovative advances and excellent applications
ative materials. h CF 1.8, CF 2.6, & CF 3.4.
in methacrylate-based restorative materials, polymeriza-
tion shrinkage is still considered as their main drawback.8
Shrinkage stress produced during resin composite poly-
merization can be responsible for maintaining the inter-
face tooth-restorative material and for the consequential
failure of the restoration.1 Light-curing starts the conver-
sion of monomer molecules to a polymer network, a stage
that causes resin composite shrinkage because of closer
packing of the molecules and conversion of the resin
composite from a viscous-plastic state to a rigid-plastic
state.9 First, shrinkage stresses in a cavity are offset by vis-
cous flow of the resin composite, but a short time after
light-curing begins, viscous flow is decreased and the
resin composite begins to transmit stresses to the cavity
walls.7,9 Filler content, type of organic matrix and flexural
modulus have a direct effect on shrinkage stresses and
Figure 3. Mean gap width and location of cavities. h Mesal wall,
Distal wall, & Floor.
marginal adaptation in cavities restored with light-curing
resin composites.10 Several approaches have been pro-
posed to decrease polymerization shrinkage and the influ-
changes on gap formation (P < 0.05). Statistical analysis
ence of contraction stress on composite resins; such as
of C-factor changes on gap formation for Filtek P90 and
incremental placement techniques, applying a low-modu-
Filtek Z250 were 0.534 and 0.148 respectively. Smallest
lus intermediate layer, modification of the current resin
gap size was measured for the cavities restored with
composites.11 Some marketed low-shrinkage restorative
Filtek P90 (6 lm), whereas the largest gap formation
composites are BisGMA-based and use increased filler lev-
was found in cavities restored with Fuji II LC Improved
els or do not utilize low-molecular weight dimethacrylates
in C-factor 3.4 (197.2 lm), followed by C-factor 2.6 and
as strategies to decrease polymerization shrinkage. Other
C-factor 1.8. In Fuji II LC Improved for each of the
materials incorporate conventional dimethacrylates with
three C-factors, there was no significant difference
new high-molecular-weight monomers, for instance, tri-
between mean gap width in mesial and distal wall; and
cyclodecane-urethane dimethacrylate or dimmer dicarba-
mean gap width in pulpal floor was more than mesial
mate dimethacrylate.12 A novel category of resin matrix,
and distal wall (P < 0.05). For Filtek Z250, there was no
so-called silorane, was developed based on ring-opening
significant difference between mean gap width in mesial
monomers for a low-shrinkage resin composite.11,13,14
and distal wall; and only in C-factor 3.4 was mean gap
The silorane molecule renders a siloxane core with four
width in pulpal floor more than mesial and distal wall
oxirane rings attached that open as soon as polymeriza-
(P < 0.05). In Filtek P90 there was no significant differ-
tion occurs and bond to other monomers.12 A silorane-
ence between mean gap width in mesial, distal wall and
based composite resin seems to be one of as the features
pulpal floor.

ª 2014 Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd 3

Configuration factor effect on gap formation
of low-shrinkage composites. Mechanical features of the
silorane-based composite resin were shown to be compa-
rable to clinically successful methacrylate-based composite
materials,8 and this resin composite showed better charac-
teristics than the methacrylate-based composites in setting
contraction and marginal adaptation.15 The microleakage
of experimental silorane-based composite resin was less
than commercial methacrylate-based composites in mesio
occluso distal cavities.16 In order to decrease microleakage
problems, silorane-based materials might be a better
replacement for methacrylate-based composites.13 In a
clinical study, silorane-based composite showed good
durability, but not considerably better than the methacry-
late-based composites in class II cavities.17 Filtek P90 is a
material consisting of a new monomer technology that
uses a combination of a siloxane backbone along with oxi-
rane molecules and a cationic ring-opening polymerization
process resulting in a polysilorane polymer. Filtek Z250 is
a successful methacrylate-based composite. According to
the composition of the materials applied in this study, a
difference in gap width among materials was expected.
There are differences in filler content and this may justify
the different behavior with regard to shrinkage stress and
so the gap formation values that were observed.
The polymerization reaction includes three phases: pre-
gel, gel and post-gel. In the pre-gel phase, a viscous
behavior is shown by the resin composite, and shrinkage
stresses produced during the polymerization reaction can
be released by the material flow.1,18,19 Polymer chains are
diffused in a linear mode and have mobility that allows
tensions initiated by polymerization shrinkage to be
dissipated by flowing.20 As the reaction is promoted, the
post-gel phase begins the first cross-links between chains,
making flow laborious and simultaneously promoting the
increase of mechanical properties and flexural modulus,
which involve inducing tensions in the restoration.20
Influence of the confinement conditions constraining
the resin composite (usually expressed as the bonded to
unbounded ratio, known as the C-factor), especially plays
a critical role in gap formation.7 In the present study,
cylindrical cavities with different C-factors were prepared
by varying the depth but keeping diameter the same. The
results showed that high C-factor values (3.4) indicated
large gap formation (Figure 2). This can be explained by
the stress relieving flow not being sufficient in this case to
maintain adhesion to dentin by dentin bonding agents. On
the other hand, lower C-factor values (1.8 and 2.6) allowed
more resin composite relaxation.21 Large gap formation
was commonly observed at floor of cavities in all tested
groups, and this could be related to high shrinkage stress
in these areas22 (Figure 3). In microleakage studies, cavity
depth was found to have a stronger effect than diameter.22
In agreeing with these results, the present research always
4 ª 2014 Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd
P. M. Boroujeni et al.
used the same diameter and different depths to create
experimental groups with different C-factor values.
In the current study, smallest gap sizes were found in
cavities restored with Filtek P90. On this point this study
agrees with studies by El-Sahn,23 Motaz24 and Bagis.13 Fil-
ler content has controversial influence on contraction pat-
tern. An increase in volume content results in a decrease
in volumetric shrinkage since the resin volume is mini-
mized. On the other hand the high filler volume leads to
stiffer materials with high elastic modulus.15 Resin-modi-
fied glass ionomer restorations caused the largest gaps to
be found in restorations. Flow ability and not possible
to pack resin-modified glass ionomer in cavities caused to
found largest gaps in tooth-cavity interfaces restored with
resin modified glass ionomre. Low elasticity and low vis-
cosity lead to poor marginal adaptation and reduced con-
traction stresses during polymerization of resin-modified
glass ionomer. In research by Dacic25 have shown more
marginal adaptation in composite-resin restorations than
resin-modified glass ionomer.
However, Suprabha26 found more microleakage in
resin-modified glass ionomer restorations than composite
resin restorations. Conditioning before filling cavities with
resin-modified glass ionomer might prevent creation of an
ion exchange layer, so causing larger gaps. Results showed
that increasing the C-factor from 1.8 to 3.4 had no effect
on gap formation in two types of composite resin restora-
tions, but in Motaz’s study increasingthe C-factor from 1
to 5 had a significant effect on gap formation in composite
restorations.24 It may be that different methods for mea-
suring the C-factor are the cause of this difference in
results because in that research instead of changing cavity
height, they prevented bond surfaces increasing the C-fac-
tor. Watts et al.27 found that increasing C-factor from
1.88 to 3.75 had no effect on gap contraction stresses in
composite resin restorations. In summary, based on the
findings attained in this in vitro study, which simulated
clinical restorative procedures in a tooth cavity, gap for-
mation is a multifactorial phenomenon that depends on
several factors, such as restorative materials and C-fac-
tor.3,7,9,10 Moreover, it is also important to study other
factors, such as the incremental technique and use of liner
materials in order to promote restoration sealing.
Conclusions
Considering the limitations of this in vitro study, it was
possible to conclude that the high C-factor values generated
the largest gap formation. Furthermore, Silorane-based
composite was more efficient for cavity sealing than meth-
acrylate-based composites and resin-modified glass iono-
mer. The outcome suggests that further research should be
conducted in order to provide better sealing of cavities.
P. M. Boroujeni et al.
References
1 Davidson CL, de Gee AJ, Feilzer A.
The competition between the com-
posite-dentin bond strength and the
polymerization contraction stress.
J Dent Res 1984; 63: 1396–9.
2 Peutzfeldt A. Resin composites in
dentistry: Monomer systems. Eur J
Oral Sci 1997; 105: 97–116.
3 Braga RR, Ballester RY, Ferracane JL.
Factors involved in the development
of polymerization shrinkage stress in
resin-composites: a systematic review.
Dent Mater 2005; 21: 962–70.
4 Eick JD, Welch FH. Polymerization
shrinkage of posterior composite res-
ins and its possible influence on post-
operative sensitivity. Quintessence Int
1986; 17: 103–11.
5 Krejci I, Lutz F. Marginal adaptation
of Class V restorations using different
restorative techniques. J Dent 1991;
19: 24–32.
6 Condon JR, Ferracane JL. Reduction
of composite contraction stress
through non-bonded microfiller parti-
cles. Dent Mater 1998; 14: 256–60.
7 Feilzer AJ, de Gee AJ, Davidson CL.
Setting stress in composite resin in
relation to configuration of the resto-
ration. J Dent Res 1987; 66: 1636–9.
8 Ilie N, Hickel R. Macro-, micro, and
nano mechanical investigations on
silorane and methacrylate based com-
posite. Dent Mater 2009; 25: 810–9.
9 Peutzfeldt A, Asmussen E. Determi-
nants of in vitro gap formation of
resin composites. J Dent 2004; 32:
109–15.
10 Silikas N, Eliades G, Watts DC. Light
intensity effects on resin-composite
degree of conversion and shrinkage
strain. Dent Mater 2000; 16: 292–6.
11 Navarra CO, Cadenaro M, Armstrong
SR et al. Degree of conversion of Fil-
tek Silorane Adhesive System and
ª 2014 Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd
Configuration factor effect on gap formation
Clearfil SE Bond within the hybrid
and adhesive layer: an in situ Raman
analysis. Dent Mater 2009; 25: 1178–
85.
12 Boaro LC, Goncalves F, Guimaraes
TC, Ferracane JL, Versluis A, Braga
RR. Polymerization stress, shrinkage
and elastic modulus of current low-
shrinkage restorative composites. Dent
Mater 2010; 26: 1144–50.
13 Bagis YH, Baltacioglu IH, Kahyaogul-
lari S. Comparing microleakage and
the layering methods of silorane-
based resin composite in wide Class
II MOD cavities. Oper Dent 2009; 34:
578–85.
14 Duarte SJR, Phark JH, Varjao FM, Sa-
dan A. Nanoleakage ultramorph-
ological characteristics, and
microtensile bond strengths of a new
low-shrinkage composite to dentin
after artificial aging. Dent Mater 2009;
25: 589–600.
15 Papadogiannis D, Kakaboura A, Pa-
laghias G, Eliades G. Setting charac-
teristics and cavity adaptation of low-
shrinkage resin composites. Dent
Mater 2009; 25: 1509–16.
16 Sabatini C, Blunck U, Denehy G,
Munoz C. Effect of pre-heated com-
posites and flowable liners on class II
gingival margin gap formation. Oper
Dent 2010; 35: 663–71.
17 Soares CG, Carracho HG, Braun AP,
Borges GA, Hirakata LM, Spohr AM.
Evaluation of bond strength and
internal adaptation between the den-
tal cavity and adhesives applied in
one and two layers. Oper Dent 2010;
35: 69–76.
18 Bausch JR, de Lange K, Davidson CL,
Peters A, de Gee AJ. Clinical signifi-
cance of polymerization shrinkage of
composite resins. J Prosthetic Dent
1982; 48: 59–67.
19 Emami N, Soderholm KJ, Berglund
LA. Effect of light power density vari-
ations on bulk curing properties of
dental composites. J Dent 2003; 31:
189–96.
20 Ferracane JL. Developing a more
complete understanding of stresses
produced in dental composites during
polymerization. Dent Mater 2005; 21:
36–42.
21 Davidson CL, de Gee AJ. Relaxation
of polymerization contraction stresses
by flow in dental composites. J Dent
Res 1984; 63: 146–8.
22 Braga RR, Boaro LC, Kuroe T, Azeve-
do CL, Singer JM. Influence of cavity
dimensions and their derivatives (vol-
ume and “C” factor) on shrinkage
stress development and microleakage
of composite restorations. Dent Mat
2006; 22: 818–23.
23 El-Sahn NA, El-Kassas DW, El-Dam-
anhoury HM, Fahmy OM, Gomaa H,
Platt JA. Effect of C-factor on micro-
tensile bond strengths of low-shrink-
age composites. Oper Dent 2011; 36:
281–92.
24 Ghulman Motaz A. Effect of cavity
configuration (C Factor) on the mar-
ginal adaptation of low-shrinking
composite: a comparative ex vivo
study. Int J Dent 2011; 23: 8.
25 Dacic S, Dacic DS, Radicevic G et al.
Marginal GAP and alteration of
enamel around adhesive restorations
of teeth (in vitro SEM investigation).
Sci J Fac Med Nis 2011; 28: 109–18.
26 Suprabha BS, Sudha P, Vidya M. A
comparative evaluation of sealing
ability of restorative materials used
for coronal sealing after root canal
therapy. Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent J
2001; 19: 137–42.
27 Watts DC, Satterthwaite JD. Axial
shrinkage-stress depends upon both
C-factor and composite mass. Dent
Mater 2008; 24: 1–8.
5