Dental Materials (2004) 20, 345–351

http://intl.elsevierhealth.com/journals/dema

Volumetric dimensional change of six direct

core materials
Supattriya Chutinan, Jeffrey A. Platt*, Michael A. Cochran, B. Keith Moore

Department of Restorative Dentistry, Division of Dental Materials, Indiana University School of Dentistry,
1121 West Michigan Street, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA

Received 5 September 2002; received in revised form 21 May 2003; accepted 29 May 2003

KEYWORDS Summary Objectives. This study evaluated the influence of water on the volumetric
Dimensional change; dimensional change of six direct placement core build-up materials by using
Hygroscopic expansion; Archimedes’ principle.
Core materials Methods. The effect on dimensional change due to the setting reaction was
determined through the use of a silicone oil storage medium. The materials used were
two dual-cured resin composites (CoreStore and Build-It FR), two chemically activated
resin composites (CorePaste and Ti-Core), one metal-reinforced glass ionomer cement
(Ketac-Silver), and one resin-modified glass ionomer (Fuji II LC Core). Using the
manufacturers’ instructions for each material, cylindrical specimens were prepared
with dimensions of 7 ^ 0.1 mm in diameter and 2 ^ 0.1 mm in height. Each material
had four groups ðn ¼ 5Þ based on storage conditions; silicone oil at 23 and 37 8C and
distilled water at 23 and 37 8C. A 0.01 mg resolution balance was used to determine
volumetric dimensional change using an Archimedean equation. Measurements were
made 30 min after mixing, and at the time intervals of 1, 14, and 56 days.
Results. All materials exhibited dimensional change. Ketac-Silver had the most
shrinkage in silicone oil and Fuji II LC showed the highest expansion in distilled water.
The glass ionomer materials showed more change than did any of the resin composite
materials.
Significance. Current direct placement core materials show variation in the amount
of volumetric dimensional change seen over a period of 56 days.
Q 2003 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction dental amalgam, resin composite and glass ionomer

Badly broken-down teeth often benefit from
rebuilding with a core material prior to the
subsequent restoration of the tooth by means of
an indirect extracoronal restoration. Cast alloys,
*Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1-317-274-7229; fax: þ1-317-
274-2419.
E-mail address: jplatt2@iupui.edu
formulations have been used for core build-up
procedures. The advantages of direct placement
and immediate crown preparation have caused a
dramatic growth in the use of resin composite
materials for this application.
The dimensional stability of resin composite and
glass ionomer core materials is affected by poly-
merization shrinkage, thermal contraction and
expansion, and interactions with an aqueous

0109-5641/$ - 30.00 Q 2003 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0109-5641(03)00127-1
346
environment. The interaction between resin com-
posites and water causes two opposing phenomena.
In some resin composites, water will leach out
unreacted monomers and other species.1 This
change contributes to shrinkage, loss in weight,
and reduction of mechanical properties. Conver-
sely, water sorption leads to a swelling of the
material and an increase in weight.2 – 5 At least two
recent prosthodontic texts reference swelling due
to water sorption as cause for concern when using
some direct core materials.6,7
The use of some materials under full coverage
restorations has been implicated in the subsequent
fracture of overlying restorations. Leevailoj et al.8
showed that exposing some cemented restorations
on extracted teeth to deionized water caused the
fracture of overlying infiltrated alumina core
restorations. Sindel et al.9 concluded that the
hygroscopic expansion of RMGIC/compomer
materials could lead to failure of overlying all-
ceramic crowns. Clearly, an understanding of the
dimensional stability of core materials should be of
concern for the restorative dentist.
The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the
volumetric dimensional change associated with six
direct placement core build-up materials.
Materials and methods
Six direct core build-up materials, as shown in
Table 1, were evaluated for volumetric dimensional
changes over time. A cast gold alloy was used to
verify the methodology.
Table 1 Materials used in the study. Manufacturers provided components listed.
Material Type manufacturer
Built-It FR (BI) Dual-cured fluoride-containing
Fiber-reinforced resin composite
Pentron Technologies Incorporated
Wallingford, CT USA
Core-Paste (CP) Chemically-cured resin composite
Den-Mat Corporation Santa Maria,
CA USA
CoreStore (CS) Dual-cured resin composite Kerr
Corporation Orange, CA USA
Ti-Core (TC) Chemically-cured resin composite
Titanium-reinforced resin composite
Essential Dental Systems, Incorporated
South Hackensack, NJ USA
Fuji II LC Core (FC) Resin-modified glass ionomer cement
GC Corporation, Alsip, IL USA
Ketac-Silver (KS) Silver-reinforced glass ionomer cement
3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN USA
S. Chutinan et al.
One hundred and twenty specimens (7 ^ 0.1 mm
£ 2 ^ 0.1 mm) were prepared using Teflon molds,
Mylar film and glass slides. The above specimen
dimensions were based on the diameter of the curing
light tip and the standard depth of cure of resin
composite materials. Twenty specimens were made
for each material. Groups of five were randomly
assigned to the four test conditions. These con-
ditions were silicone oil (polydimethylsiloxane) at 23
and 37 8C and distilled water at 23 and 37 8C.
The experimental materials were handled in a
room that was environmentally controlled at
23 ^ 1 8C and 55 – 60% RH. Ti-Core and CoreStore
were mixed in equal amounts of catalyst and base.
Build-It FR and Core-Paste were automixed. The
dual-cured material, CoreStore was activated using
a visible light-curing unit (Demetron Optilux, Model
No.VCL 401, Demetron Research Corporation) for
40 s from both sides of the mold. The output was
verified to be above 400 mW/cm2 prior to each
fabrication session with a Demetron curing radio-
meter (P/N10503, Model 100). Ti-Core, Build-It FR,
and Core-Paste were allowed to chemically-cure for
4 min. The encapsulated material, Ketac-Silver was
mixed in an amalgamator (Ultramat 2, SDI) before
placement into the mold. Fuji II LC Core was hand
spatulated after dispensing the powder and liquid in
a ratio of 3.6 g/1.0 g.
Fluids were stored at 23 and 37 8C for 24 h before
they were used. After 24 h and throughout the
study, the fluid temperatures were monitored with
a digital thermometer (Omega, Model 871).
Archimedes’ principle (buoyancy of a material in
fluid) was used to measure volumetric dimensional
Batch number presentation Major matrix components
#42723 Automixed Bis-GMA, UDMA, HDDMA
#030635100 Automixed Methacrylates
#102601 Paste/Paste Methacrylate ester
monomers
#A1910/A1420 Paste/Paste Aromatic/aliphatic
dimethacrylates
#0009261 Powder/Liquid Polyacrylic acid, HEMA,
TEGDMA
#FW0064086 Pre-capsulated Polyethylene polycarbonic
acid, tartaric acid
Volumetric dimensional change of six direct core materials
changes. By Archimedes’ principle and using
equations previously developed10
Volume displaced [volume of object] ¼ mass
upthrust/density of immersion fluid
V ¼ DM=r ¼ ðMa 2 Mw Þ=r
Ma ¼ the mass in air
Mw ¼ the apparent mass, immersed in the fluid.
The volumetric change ðDVÞ can be defined as
follows:
DV ð%Þ ¼ ½{Ve 2 Vo }=Vo  £ 100
¼ ½{Ve =Vo } 2 1 £ 100
Ve ¼ the changed volume
Vo ¼ the original volume
Substituting Eq. (1) in Eq. (2),
DV ð%Þ ¼ ½{½ðMa;t 2 Mw;t Þ=rt  £ ½r=ðMa 2 Mw Þ}21  £ 100
Ma;t ¼ the mass in air at time ðtÞ
Mw;t ¼ the apparent mass, immersed in fluid at
time ðtÞ
rt ¼ density of liquid at time ðtÞ temperature
r ¼ density of liquid at original time
temperature
Note that the equations measured mass in air
and in fluid at original time and at time ðtÞ:
Specimen expansion showed a positive quantity.
Thus, as defined, any observations of shrinkage
strain would have DV as a negative quantity.
Different immersion fluids could be used, other
than water, provided that they do not react
chemically with the solid specimen apart from
swelling. According to Eq. (3), the value of rt
needs to be known. The temperature of the liquid
was taken into account as the temperature has a
greater effect with liquids and causes density
changes in an order of magnitude of 0.1 – 1% per
8C. The temperature was recorded to a resolution
of 0.1 8C by using a digital thermometer. The
temperature and the weight in liquid were taken at
the same time.
A 0.01 mg resolution balance (AG 285, Mettler
Toledo) was used to measure the weight of each
specimen at various time intervals up to 56 days.
Each specimen was weighed at 30 min from the start
of fabrication in air and in its immersion fluid
(silicone oil or distilled water). This value was the
original weight of each material. The time intervals
347
measured were 1, 14, and 56 days from start of
fabrication.
For weight in air, each specimen was removed
from the test tube and was dried by blotting with
absorbent tissue and gently blowing with a fan
ð1Þ from a distance of 1 cm for 15 s, except for KS,
which was dried only by blotting with absorbent
tissue. The specimen was placed on the balance
for 30 s and the displayed weight was noted. The
same specimen was removed from the pan and
placed in the holder immersed in its immersion
fluid. This procedure was done with extreme care
to ensure that no air bubbles adhered to the solid.
Separate brushes for each fluid were used to
remove air bubbles. The specimen stayed on the
ð2Þ
apparatus for thirty seconds and the displayed
weight was noted. The specimen was then placed
back in its test tube. This cycle was finished within
2 min. This procedure was repeated five times at
each time period.
Data were compared using repeated measures
analysis of variances (ANOVA). Comparisons
between the materials were made using Tukey’s
ð3Þ multiple comparisons procedure to control the
overall significance level at p , 0:05: To evaluate
the effect of water after removing the effect
of the setting reaction, differences in the means
and the standard deviations11 were obtained
before analysis with one-way ANOVA and Student-
Newman-Keuls All-Pairwise Multiple Comparisons
procedures for each temperature and each time
period.
Results
To verify the methodology, a pilot study was
conducted using a stable and coherent material,
Type IV gold alloy. Table 2 indicates that there was
no significant difference in the calculated density
between silicone oil and water. The results were
consistent with the expected results and provide
support for the methodology.
The mean percentage volumetric dimensional
change in silicone oil and in distilled water is given
in Table 3 for each material and condition. The
table also indicates the effect of water alone,
found by subtracting the setting shrinkage deter-
mined by the silicone oil measurements. When
stored in silicone oil, all materials showed con-
traction with KS and FC generally showing statisti-
cally larger changes than the other materials
(Table 4). When stored in distilled water, all
materials except KS at 37 8C showed expansion.
348 S. Chutinan et al.

Table 2 Volumetric dimensional change of Type IV gold

Discussion
alloy in distilled water and in poly(dimethylsiloxane) at 23 8C.
Although Archimedes’ principle has long been
Period (days) Density of gold in Density of gold in
applied in many applications, it has been proposed
distilled water (g/cm3) silicone oil (g/cm3)
only recently as a method for determining dimen-
0 14.94 14.95 sional change of restorative materials.10,12,13 Given
1 14.95 14.96 a body immersed in a fluid, the principle states
2 14.95 14.95 that the volume of the displaced fluid is equal to
the mass upthrust of the body divided by the
density of the fluid. Using Archimedes’ principle,
The values and significant differences between the volume change in a core build-up material
materials are shown in Table 5. after an immersion in a fluid can be computed from
Differences in DV% between distilled water and the mass upthrust and the fluid density before and
silicone oil were determined for each specimen at after the immersion, as discussed previously.
each time period and at each temperature. The Because of the use of a 0.01 mg balance, this
differences are referred to as the effect of the study required precision of the fluid density data,
aqueous environment on specimens. The significant which is temperature dependent. In particular, the
differences of DV% after subtracting the effect of fluid density data as a function of temperature
setting changes are shown in Table 6. with a resolution of 0.1 8C was required for

Table 3 Mean percentage volumetric dimensional changes (standard deviation) of the materials studied at 1 day, 14 days, and 56
days, stored in fluid media at 23 and 37 8C.

Material Conditions Temperature (8C) 1 Day 14 Days 56 Days

BI Silicone oil 23 20.22 (0.12) 20.30 (0.06) 20.21 (0.06)

37 20.13 (0.07) 20.21 (0.07) 20.10 (0.06)
Distilled water 23 20.02 (0.13) 0.17 (0.13) 0.50 (0.10)
37 0.08 (0.06) 0.35 (0.10) 0.76 (0.09)
Effect of water 23 0.20 (0.18) 0.47 (0.14) 0.71 (.012)
37 0.21 (0.09) 0.56 (0.12) 0.86 (0.11)
CP Silicone oil 23 20.18 (0.05) 20.37 (0.06) 20.54 (0.08)
37 20.32 (0.08) 20.49 (0.09) 20.86 (0.12)
Distilled water 23 0.09 (0.08) 0.38 (0.06) 0.47 (0.10)
37 20.09 (0.08) 0.29 (0.12) 0.12 (0.08)
Effect of water 23 0.27 (0.09) 0.76 (0.08) 1.01 (0.13)
37 0.24 (0.11) 0.78 (0.15) 0.98 (0.14)
CS Silicone oil 23 20.10 (0.12) 20.28 (0.07) 20.31 (0.08)
37 20.24 (0.18) 20.32 (0.08) 20.34 (0.05)
Distilled water 23 20.26 (0.05) 0.12 (0.11) 0.12 (0.03)
37 0.12 (0.11) 0.51 (0.14) 0.54 (0.12)
Effect of water 23 20.17 (0.13) 0.40 (0.13) 0.42 (0.09)
37 0.36 (0.21) 0.83 (0.16) 0.88 (0.13)
TC Silicone oil 23 20.19 (0.06) 20.22 (0.07) 20.29 (0.02)
37 20.14 (0.03) 20.17 (0.04) 20.33 (0.04)
Distilled water 23 20.21 (0.04) 0.00 (0.06) 0.37 (0.11)
37 20.13 (0.11) 0.35 (0.09) 0.72 (0.13)
Effect of water 23 20.01 (0.07) 0.22 (0.09) 0.66 (0.11)
37 0.02 (0.11) 0.51 (0.51) 1.05 (0.14)
KS Silicone oil 23 22.52 (0.20) 23.74 (0.18) 24.43 (0.16)
37 24.75 (0.37) 29.00 (0.53) 29.96 (0.42)
Distilled water 23 0.27 (0.09) 0.37 (0.12) 0.39 (0.11)
37 20.12 (0.17) 20.32 (0.17) 20.24 (0.23)
Effect of water 23 2.78 (0.22) 4.11 (0.22) 4.82 (0.19)
37 4.63 (0.41) 8.68 (0.56) 9.42 (0.48)
FC Silicone oil 23 21.25 (0.21) 22.68 (0.23) 22.74 (0.25)
37 21.77 (0.17) 23.40 (0.55) 23.69 (0.36)
Distilled water 23 3.35 (0.60) 4.70 (0.34) 5.04 (0.42)
37 3.24 (0.29) 4.06 (0.38) 4.16 (0.35)
Effect of water 23 4.60 (0.64) 7.38 (0.41) 7.78 (0.49)
37 5.00 (0.34) 7.46 (0.67) 7.84 (0.50)
Volumetric dimensional change of six direct core materials 349

Table 4 DV% of materials stored in silicone oil from lowest Table 6 DV% of materials stored in water after removing the
to highest shrinkage. effect of setting reaction from the highest to the lowest
expansion.
23 8C 37 8C
23 8C 37 8C
1 Day 14 Days 56 Days 1 Day 14 Days 56 Days
1 Day 14 Days 56 Days 1 Day 14 Days 56 Days
KSa KSa KSa KSa KSa KSa
FCb FCb FCb FCb FCb FCb
BIc CPc CPc CPc CPc CPc FCa FCa FCa FCa KSa KSa
TCc BIc CSd CSd CSd CSd KSb KSb KSb KSb FCb FCb
CPc CSc TCd TCd BId TCd CPc CPc CPc CSc CSc TCc
CSc TCc BId BId TCd BId BIc BId BIc,d CPc CPc CPc
TCc CSd TCc,d BIc BIc BIc
Superscript letters designate statistically similar groups in CSc TCd CSd TCc TCc CSc
each column.
Superscript letters designate statistically similar groups in
each column.
the distilled water and the silicone oil,
polydimethylsiloxane.
In crown and bridge procedures, an elapsed time the materials were significant, the volume gain by
of 30 min from the fabrication of the core build-up water sorption could be offset by the volume loss
to making the impression is not unusual and was the due to solubility.
justification for the starting point for the measure- As a group, the resin composites immersed in
ments. By the end of this time period, most of the silicone oil exhibited a slight volume loss (less than
setting shrinkage likely would have already 0.5%), which may be related to the polymerization
occurred as reported by Watts and Cash.14 The reaction. The volume loss was lower than reported
longer periods of 14 and 56 days were chosen in this in previous studies (1 – 1.7 and 2 –3% for fine and
study. The 14-day period was chosen to simulate microfine resin composites, respectively).15 This
can be explained by the difference between the
the common time period for the delivery of an
baseline measurement time in our study and others.
indirect restoration. The 56-day period was chosen
Most of the polymerization shrinkage would have
to investigate the dimensional changes in these
been completed before our 30 min baseline
core build-up materials after a longer period of
measurements. Taking into account the difference
time. The results are compared between two
in measurement times, the results corresponded
temperatures, 23 and 37 8C, which were selected
quite well with previous reports that the volumetric
to mimic the laboratory and clinical conditions.
polymerization shrinkage is in the range of 2.5 – 5.0%
In silicone oil, the volume change in the speci-
within the first 24 h and that 65 – 75% of this amount
mens after immersion was treated as due solely to
occurs within the first 10 min of placement.16
the setting reaction. This is because it is less likely
Investigations have been reported about the
for ions or molecules to leach into the silicone oil. In
amount of time needed for water sorption to reach
contrast, in distilled water, the volume change was
equilibrium in resin composites. The results are
impacted by the effect of water, water sorption and
varied. Some studies have shown that equilibrium
solubility. This study does not take into account the
was reached after short periods of time, such as 7
solubility of the test materials. If the solubility of
days15 or 14 days,17 while others showed that the
water uptake still continued after 3 years.18 In this
Table 5 DV% of materials stored in distilled water from study, the water sorption expansion in most resin
highest to lowest expansion.
composites still continued up to 56 days except for
23 8C 37 8C CP, which actually showed a reduction in volume
between 14 and 56 days at 37 8C. This might be
1 Day 14 Days 56 Days 1 Day 14 Days 56 Days
explained by material solubility, but is unconfirmed.
FCa FCa FCa FCa FCa FCa The setting shrinkage of glass-ionomer cement
KSb CPb BIb CSb CSb BIb has been previously shown to be in a range
CPb KSb CPb BIb TCb TCb comparable to that of resin composites.12 We
BIb BIb KSb CPb BIb CSb,c found the setting contraction of 9.66% at 37 8C for
TCb CSb TCb KSb CPb CPc,d
CSb TCb CSb TCb KSc KSd the metal-modified glass-ionomer cement, KS, was
the highest among the materials tested. The setting
Superscript letters designate statistically similar groups in contraction of glass-ionomer is caused by an acid-
each column.
base setting reaction that transforms a viscous
350
material into a hardened mass, resulting in an
increase in density with a concomitant decrease in
volume.19 The contraction from the acid-base
reaction is slow, relative to the contraction of
resin composites, with only 40 – 50% of its final
shrinkage occurring in the first 10 min.20 Thus, the
glass-ionomer would appear to undergo a higher
amount of shrinkage than the resin composites
between 30 min and 56 days after fabrication. Our
result for the setting shrinkage of the metal-
reinforced glass-ionomer cement was in line with
a previous study by Grajower and Guelmann21 (who
reported a setting shrinkage of 6.7% for KS).
Because of the hydrogel nature of glass iono-
mers, one would expect that after a long period of
56 days, KS would absorb a significant amount of
water, resulting in an increase in volume that was
enough to compensate for the setting contraction
of the material. The high setting contraction of KS
contributed to the results since a significant amount
of water would be required to compensate for it.
The amount of the volumetric dimensional
change due to the effect of water after removing
the effect of the setting reaction for the metal-
reinforced glass-ionomer was comparable to that
for the resin-modified glass-ionomer cement but
much higher than the measurements for the resin
composites.
The resin-modified glass-ionomer cement, in
silicone oil, shrank less than the metal-reinforced
glass-ionomer, but more than the resin composites.
This is consistent with the dual nature of its setting
reaction. The reaction is dominated first by the
rapid free-radical polymerization of the resin
monomers, and later by a slower acid – base reaction
from the glass-ionomer component, slowed further
by the presence of hydroxyethyl methacrylate
(HEMA) which has the effect of retarding the acid-
base contractive reaction in glass-ionomer.22
The resin-modified glass ionomer showed cumu-
lative volumetric expansions that were significantly
higher than those of the other materials at all time
periods. This result is in line with the report by
Hollis et al.23 that showed higher linear dimensional
changes in two resin-modified glass-ionomer
cements than in a conventional glass-ionomer
cement and a resin composite cement. This swel-
ling behavior is like that of synthetic hydrogels24
and this may be due to the presence of HEMA, a
hydrophilic monomer that contributes to the
formation of hydrogels. Hydrogels are materials
designed to take up large amounts of water and are
often prepared from copolymers of HEMA.25
Although a crown typically covers the core build-
up material, the material can be exposed to water
and volumetrically expand in the oral environment
S. Chutinan et al.
both before and after the cementation of the final
restoration. All of the materials showed expansion
due to the effect of water during the first 14 days,
the time that simulated the period before cemen-
tation. After cementation, the material may still
come into contact with water internally from the
dentinal tubules and externally from diffusion
through cement. The time period between 14 and
56 days was designed to simulate the period after
cementation. During this period, the resin compo-
site, CS, underwent slight change in dimension at 23
and 37 8C. In contrast, the resin-modified glass
ionomer showed high expansion. The effect of this
dimensional change on the fit of a final restoration
requires further investigation.
References
1. Braden M, Pearson GJ. Analysis of aqueous extract from
filled resins. J Dent 1981;9:141—3.
2. Fan PL, Edahl A, Leung RG, Stanford JW. Alternative
interpretations of water sorption values of composite resins.
J Dent Res 1985;64:78—80.
3. Hirasawa T, Hirano S, Hirabayashi S, Harishima I, Aizawa M.
Initial dimensional changes of composite in wet and dry
conditions. J Dent Res 1983;62:28—31.
4. Oysaed H, Ruyter IE. Water sorption and filler characteristics
of composites for use in posterior teeth. J Dent Res 1986;65:
1315—8.
5. Momoi Y, McCabe JF. Hygroscopic expansion of resin based
composites during 6 months of water storage. Br Dent J
1994;176:91—6.
6. Rosenstiel SF, Land MF, Fujimoto J. Contemporary fixed
prosthodontics, 3rd ed. St Louis: Mosby; 2001. p. 140.
7. Shillingburg JrHT, Hobo S, Whitsett LD, Jacobi R, Brackett
SE. Fundamentals of fixed prosthodontics, 3rd ed. Chicago:
Quintessence; 1997. p. 185.
8. Leevailoj C, Platt JA, Cochran MA, Moore BK. In vitro
study of fracture incidence and compressive fracture load
of all-ceramic crowns cemented with resin-modified glass
ionomer and other luting agents. J Prosthet Dent 1998;
80:699—707.
9. Sindel J, Frankenberger R, Krämer N, Petschelt A. Crack
formation of all-ceramic crowns dependent on different core
build-up and luting materials. J Dent 1999;27:175—81.
10. Watts DC, Kisumbi BK, Toworfe GK. Dimensional changes of
resin/ionomer restoratives in aqueous and neutral media.
Dent Mater 2000;16:89—96.
11. Barford NC. Experimental measurements: precision, error
and truth, 2nd ed. Chichester: Wiley; 1986. p. 32.
12. Attins T, Buchalla W, Kielbassa AM, Hellwig E. Curing
shrinkage and volumetric changes of resin-modified glass
ionomer restorative materials. Dent Mater 1995;11:
359—62.
13. Soltesz U, Leupolz M. Dimensionsverhalten von Glasiono-
merzementen in trockenerund feuchter Umgebung. Dtsch
Zahnärztl Z 1993;48:431—5.
14. Watts DC, Cash AJ. Determination of polymerization
shrinkage kinetics in visible-light-cured materials: methods
development. Dent Mater 1991;7:281—7.
15. Craig RG, editor. Restorative dental materials, 10th ed. St
Louis: CV Mosby; 1997. p. 44—5, 254.
Volumetric dimensional change of six direct core materials
16. Ferracane JL. In vitro evaluation of composite resins:
structure—property relationships, development of assess-
ment criteria. Trans Acad Dent Mater 1989;2:6—35.
17. Pearson GJ. Long term water sorption and solubility of
composite filling materials. J Dent 1979;7:64—8.
18. Martin N, Jedynakiewics N. Measurement of water sorption
in dental composites. Biomaterials 1998;19:77—83.
19. Miyasaki M, Masutant S, Matsuzaki T, Hinoura K, Onose H.
Volumetric shrinkage of light-cured type II glass ionomers.
J Dent Res 1992;71(633). Abstract no. 939.
20. Feilzer AJ, de Gee AJ, Davidson CL. Curing contraction of
composites and glass-ionomer cements. J Prosthet Dent
1988;59:297—300.
351
21. Grajower R, Guelmann M. Dimensional changes during
setting of a glass ionomer filling material. Quintessence Int
1989;20:505—11.
22. Wilson AD. Resin-modified glass-ionomer cements. Int J
Prosthodont 1990;3:425—9.
23. Hollis RA, Rasmussen TE, Christensen RP. Linear expansion
of three RMGI cements to three controls. J Dent Res 1997;
76(318). Abstract no. 2439.
24. Anstice HM, Nicholson JW. Studies on the structure of
light-cured glass-ionomer cements. J Mater Sci 1992;3:
447—51.
25. Pedley DG, Skelly PJ, Tighe B. Hydrogels in biomedical
applications. Br Polym J 1980;12:99—109.