|| Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid
Few studies have investigated the volumetric polymerization shrinkage and film thickness of the different cementation techniques used to cement veneers.The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the volumetric polymerization shrinkage (VS) and film thickness (FT) of various cementation techniques through 3-dimensional (3D) microcomputed tomography (μCT).Forty-eight artificial plastic maxillary central incisors with standard preparations for veneers were provided by a mannequin manufacturer (P-Oclusal) and used as testing models with the manufacturer’s plastic veneers. They were divided into 8 groups (n=6): RelyX Veneer + Scotchbond Universal (RV+SBU); Variolink Esthetic LC+Adhese Universal (VE+ADU); Filtek Supreme Ultra Flowable + Scotchbond Universal (FF+SBU); IPS Empress Direct Flow + Adhese Universal (IEF+ADU); Filtek Supreme Ultra Universal + Scotchbond Universal (FS+SBU); IPS Empress Direct + Adhese Universal (IED+ADU); Preheated Filtek Supreme Ultra Universal + Scotchbond Universal (PHF+SBU); and Preheated IPS Empress Direct + Adhese Universal (PHI+ADU). Specimens were scanned before and after polymerization using a μCT apparatus (mCT 40; Scanco Medical AG), and the resulting files were imported and analyzed with 3D rendering software to calculate the VS and FT. Collected data from both the VS and FT were submitted to 1-way ANOVA (α=.05).VE+ADU had the lowest volumetric shrinkage (1.03%), which was not significantly different from RV+SBU, FF+SBU or IEF+ADU (P>.05). The highest volumetric shrinkage was observed for FS+SBU (2.44%), which was not significantly different from RV+SBU, IED+ADU, PHF+SBU, or PHI+ADU (P>.05). Group RV+SBU did not differ statistically from the remaining groups (P>.05). Film thickness evaluation revealed the lowest values for RV+SBU, VE+ADU, FF+SBU, and IEF+ADU, with an average between groups of 0.17 mm; these groups were significantly different from FS+SBU, IED+ADU, PHF+SBU, and PHI+ADU (P>.05), with an average of 0.31 mm.Both the VS and the FT of direct restorative composite resins were higher than those of veneer cements and flowable composite resins, whether preheated or not preheated.