Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research 21 (1): 107-112, 2014

ISSN 1990-9233
© IDOSI Publications, 2014
DOI: 10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2014.21.01.82370

Polymerisation Shrinkage in Resin Composites-A Review

1
A.V.K. Narene, 2B. Veniashok, 1A. Subbiya,
1
P. Vivekanandhan and 1V.G. Sukumaran

Department of Conservative and Endodontics,

1

Sree Balaji Dental College and Hospital, Bharath University, Chennai, India
2
Department Of Conservative and Endodontics,
Ragas Dental College and Hospital, Chennai, India

Abstract: Today's composite resins have low polymerization shrinkage and low coefficients of thermal
shrinkage, which allows them to be placed in bulk while maintaining good adaptation to cavity walls. The
placement of composite requires meticulous attention to procedure or it may fail prematurely. Despite, the failure
of resin composite restorations due to polymerization shrinkage of the material has been a marked reason has
been addressed in the recent times. The purpose of this article is to review on the various factors involved in
the process of polymerization shrinkage.

Key words: Polymerization Shrinkage Resin Composites Dental Resin

INTRODUCTION electrons, starting the polymerization process 3.

Since their development in the late 1950s [1, 2] resin
composites represent a class of materials widely used in
restorative dentistry. Besides acceptable aesthetics
properties, resin composites can be directly bonded
to tooth structure without removing healthy tissues..
The objectives of this article are to review the origin of
polymerization shrinkage, the clinical factors affecting
polymerization stress, and methods advocated to reduce
polymerization shrinkage.
Composite resins have four primary components:
An organic matrix,
Inorganic fillers,
A coupling agent that binds the filler to the matrix,
and
The initiator/accelerator system.
Polymerisation Shrinkage: It occurs in two stages:
Blue light(400–550 nm) activates Camphoroquinone
[CQ] and converts it to an excited triplet state.
The excited CQ then reacts with a coinitiator to form
free radicals, which are molecules with unpaired
When this reactive radical reacts with a monomer
molecule, an active centre is created and propagates
the polymerization reaction.
A second step of the polymerization process is the
propagation reaction, which involves the polymer
chain growth by rapid sequential addition of
monomer to the active centers via covalent bonds
until the maximum degree of conversion of C=C
double-bonds into C–C bonds is achieved (Fig 1).
At this moment, the distance among the monomers is
approximately 4 A°. During the polymerization process,
these forces are substituted by covalent bonds, with
distances of approximately 1.5 A°. This volumetric
contraction when small monomer units are converted to a
single long polymer chain is called as polymerization
shrinkage.
Typical resin composites applied in restorative
dentistry exhibit volumetric shrinkage values from less
than 1% up to 6%, depending on the formulation and
curing conditions [3-5].
Polymerisation Shrinkage Stress: The exothermic
reaction created when the monomer converts to the
polymer produces a volume reduction in the polymer with

Corresponding Author: AVK Narene, Department of Conservative and Endodontics, Sree Balaji Dental College and Hospital,
Bharath University, Pallikaranai, Chennai, India.
107
 Middle-East J. Sci. Res., 21 (1): 107-112, 2014
Fig. 1: Mechanism of polymerization shrinkage
Fig. 2: Bulk curing with RMGIC
a resulting decrease in molecular vibration and
intermolecular distances [6]. As the polymer is formed, the
resin matrix changes from a paste or pregel state to a
viscous solid and the composite resin contracts by
about 1.5% to 6%. The gel point is the point at which the
resin changes from a viscous paste to an elastic solid.
When the gel point is reached, stress is transmitted from
the composite resin to the surrounding tooth structures.
As curing begins, the material flows from unbound
surfaces to accommodate for shrinkage [7]. As the
composite resin becomes more rigid because of the
increasing modulus of the composite, flow stops and the
bonded composite resin transmits shrinkage stresses
generated to the surrounding tooth.
Factors Influencing the Amount of Polymerization
Contraction Stress Include:
Cavity volume and type of cavity;
The amount and quality of residual mineralized tooth
tissue;
Location of cavity margins;
Bond strength of the adhesive;
Material composition; (Flowable vs restorative
composites)
Flow of the composite;
Shade and opacity of composite resin.
Curing mode (light cure or chemical cure)
Water sorption of the composite
108
Consequences of Polymerization Shrinkage: At the gel
point and the stress generated may exceed the adhesive
bond or the cohesive strength of the tooth or the
composite, producing a marginal defect. When composite
resin is bonded on all surfaces, shrinkage must be
compensated by flow of the composite, tooth, or adhesive
[8]. If this stress is greater than the cohesive strength of
the composite, fracture occurs within the composite. If the
stress exceeds the tensile strength of enamel, the enamel
fractures. Cracks or fractures are seen in teeth with
bucco-lingually wide restorations because the cavity
walls are primarily enamel, which is brittle and too thin to
withstand the forces generated by polymerization
shrinkage [9].
C Factor (Fig 5): There is a relationship between cavity
configuration and stress development. Flat surfaces and
shallow cavities represent the most favorable conditions
for the formation of a durable composite-dentin bond.
In these cavities polymerization contraction is restricted
to one direction, thus, allowing the composite to flow
freely [10]. This condition prevents the contraction forces
from producing stress and helps in creating a strong bond
to the cavity walls. When the contraction is hindered in
three dimensions, the stress will be less compensated by
flow.
Feilzer et al. [11] developed the C-factor concept
which is the relationship between the ratio of the free and
bonded composite surface area of a dental restoration
(Figure 4). Box-like class I cavities have five bonded walls
and only one un-bonded (i.e., surface of composite)
surface. The C-factor is 5/1 = 5 if all of the walls have the
same surface area. Class V wedge-shaped lesions have
lower C-factors, usually between 1.5 and 3, depending on
the design. Most restorations have C-values of
approximately 1 to 2. Class II and class III restorations
may account for these ratios. Values of C=1 refer to class
IV restorations and composite layers applied to flat or
shallowly curved surfaces [12].
Strategies to Reduce Polymerisation Shrinkage:
Altering Composite formlations
Incremental layering technique
Light curing procedures
Stress absorbing layers with low elastic modulus
Preheating composites.
Altering Composite Formulations
Silorane Molecules: The most recent modification on the
polymer matrix is based on using ring opening
 Middle-East J. Sci. Res., 21 (1): 107-112, 2014
Fig. 3: Layering techniques
Fig. 4: C Factor
polymerization of the silorane molecules, instead of free
radical polymerization of dimethacrylatemonomers [13].
Silorane resin reveals lower polymerization shrinkage
compared to the dimethacrylates. These “cyclic”
monomers have provided particularly interesting and
commercially viable results. Such monomers “open” their
molecular structures on polymerisation with local
volumetric expansion and this may partly or totally
compensate for volumetric shrinkage from C=C or similar
polymerization [14].
Photoinitiator Systems: Changes in the photoinitiator
systems and polymerization inhibitors have also been
reported. It was shown that increased inhibitor
concentrations reduced the rate of polymerization and the
shrinkage stress without significantly compromising the
final degree of conversion [15]. It was found that
phenylpropanedione, substituting for part of the
109
camphorquinone content, reduced the stress development
rate without compromising the final degree of conversion
and degradation resistance of the composite [16].
Alteration in Filler Content: Addition of nonbonded
colloidal silica filler particles might act as stress-relieving
sites through plastic deformation [17]. It was verified that
composites with nanofiller particles treated with a
nonfunctional silane developed 50% less stress than
composites fully treated with the functional coupling
agent. Inclusion of a component readily allowing plastic
deformation during stress development, such as ultrahigh
molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) fibres also
reduces polymerization shrinkage [18].
Incremental Layering Technique: It is widely
accepted incremental filling decreases shrinkage stress
as a result of reduced polymerization material volume.
 Middle-East J. Sci. Res., 21 (1): 107-112, 2014
Each increment is compensated by the next, and the
consequence of polymerization shrinkage is less
damaging since only the volume reduction of the last
layer can damage the bond surface. Theoretically, if an
infinite number of increments were used, the magnitude
of polymerization shrinkage would be insignificant [19].
The following are the best known techniques:
Facio-lingual Layering (Vertical), (Fig 3)
Gingivo-occlusal Layering (Horizontal), (Fig 3)
Three-site Technique: [20], - This is a layering technique
associated with the use of a clear matrix and reflective
wedges. First, the curing light is directed through the
matrix and wedges in the attempt to guide the
polymerization vectors toward the gingival margin, thus,
preventing any gap formation. Then wedge-shaped
composite increments are placed to further prevent
distortion of cavity walls and reduce the C-factor.
This technique is associated with polymerization first
through the cavity walls and then from the occlusal
surface in order to direct the vectors of polymerization
toward the adhesive surface (Indirect polymerization
technique).
Oblique Layering (Wedge-Shaped): In this technique
wedge-shaped composite increments are placed and
polymerized only from the occlusal surface (Fig 3).
Successive Cusp Build-up Technique: [21]- In this
technique the first composite increment is applied to the
dentin surface without contacting the opposing cavity
walls, and the restoration is built up by placing a series of
wedge-shaped composite increments to minimize the
C-factor in 3 dimensional cavity preparations. Each cusp
is then built up separately[22] (Fig 3).
Bulk Technique: The bulk technique reduces stress at
the cavosurface margins. Here the adhesive, flowable
composite are placed into the preparation in bulk and the
polymerized by curing through the tooth from the buccal
and lingual (Fig 2).
Curing Charecteristics: These techniques of curing
provide an initial low rate of polymerization thereby
extending the time available for stress relaxation before
reaching the gel point.
Soft Start Polymerization: This involves 100mW/cm2 for
10 seconds followed by immediate radiance at an intensity
of 600mW/cm2 for 30 seconds [22].
110
Pulse Delay Polymerization: In this method the clinician
apply the initial exposure with reduced light radiance for
a very short period of time (Seconds or minutes) and fully
radiate later.
Ramped Curing: The intensity is gradually increased or
ramped up during the exposure. This ramping consists of
stepwise, linear or exponential modes [23].
Delayed Curing: The restoration is initially cured at low
intensity. Then the restoration is contoured to the correct
occlusion and later applies the final cure. This delay
allows substantial relaxation to take place. Longer the time
period available for relaxation, the lower the shrinkage
stress.
Sited Light Curing or Transenamel Curing: It has been
postulated that contraction takes place towards the
light source in light curing composites. To guide the
shrinkage towards the cavity walls, 3 sited light
curing has been developed. In this technique using
the light transmitting wedges, the composite is curd
from the buccal and lingual walls in addition to occlusal
side. But the efficacy of the technique is yet to be proved
[22, 24].
Stress Absorbing Layers with Low Elastic
Modulus: According to “elastic bonding concept”
the shrinkage stress generated by a subsequent
layer of high modulus resin composite can be
absorbed by an elastic intermediary layer,
thereby reducing the stress at the tooth – restoration
interface manifested clinically as a reduction in cuspal
deflection.
Flowable Resin Composite: They have a modulus of
elasticity 20-30% lower than conventional hybrid
composites [26]. Because of their lower filler content &
reduced elastic modulus, these materials could act as a
stress breaker to absorb the forces of polymerization
shrinkage for cyclic loading.
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement: As Flowable
composites, the low modulus of elasticity reduces the
stiffness and increases the stress absorption capacity of
the restoration. The resin modified glass ionomer cements
are preferred over conventional glass ionomer cements
because they can chemically copolymerize with the
resin composite placed over the intermediate cement layer
(Fig 2).
 Middle-East J. Sci. Res., 21 (1): 107-112, 2014
The use of RMGIC and Flowable composites as base
materials with the appropriate elastic modulus can reduce
the marginal defect in an overlying composite resin
restoration [26].
Preheating: Recently, preheating resin composites have
been advocated as a method to increase composite flow,
Improve marginal adaptation and monomer conversion
has been proved. The benefits of preheating composites
may have an impact on daily restorative procedures as
well, with the application of shorter light exposure to
provide conversion values similar to those seen in
unheated condition. Increased temperature decreases
system viscosity and enhances radical mobility, resulting
in additional polymerization and higher degree
conversion. The collision frequency of unreacted active
groups and radicals could increases with elevated curing
temperature when below the glass transition temperature.
Therefore, at raised temperatures, in theory, it would be
possible to obtain higher degree of conversion before the
vitrification point, decreasing the magnitude of stress.
CONCLUSION
Currently the resin composites based on
dimethacylates are inevitably linked with shrinkage that
can compromise the success and longevity of the
restoration particularly in stress bearing areas. There is no
straight forward way of handling adhesive restorative
materials that would guarantee the reliability of
restorations. This is due to the several aspects involved
in the polymerization process. However judicious case
selection and effective placement techniques can be used
to create more predictable and esthetic direct resin based
composite restorations.
REFERENCES
1. Bowen, R.L., 1963. Properties of a silica-reinforced
polymer for dental restorations. JADA, 66: 57-64.
2. Bowen, R.L., 1967. Adhesive bonding of various
materials to hard tooth tissues—VI: forces
developing in direct-filling materials during
hardening. JADA, 74(3): 439-445.
3. Schneider, L.FJ., L.M. Cavalcante and N. Silikas, 2010.
Shrinkage Stresses Generated during Resin-
Composite Applications: A Review. J Dent Biomech
1(1): 1- 14.
4. Kleverlaan, C.J. and A.J. Feilzer, 2005. Polymerization
shrinkage and contraction stress of dental resin
composites. Dent Mater, 21(12): 1150-1157.
111
5. Weinmann, W., C. Thalacker and R. Guggenberger,
2005. Siloranes in dental composites. Dent Mater ,
21(1): 68-74.
6. Davidson, C.L. and A.J. de Gee, 1984. Relaxation of
polymerization contraction stresses by flow in dental
composites. J. Dent Res., 63: 146-148.
7. Venhoven, B.A.M., A.J. de Gee and C.L. Davidson,
1996. Light initiation of dental resins:
dynamics of the polymerization. Biomaterials,
17(24): 2313-2318.
8. Gonc¸ Alves, F., C.S. Pfeifer, J.L. Ferracane and
R.R. Braga, 2008. Contraction stress determinants in
dimethacrylate composites J. Dent Res., 87: 367-371.
9. Pfeifer, C.S., J.L. Ferracane, R.L. Sakaguchi and
R.R. Braga, 2008. Factors affecting
photopolymerization stress in dental composites. J.
Dent Res., 87: 1043-1047.
10. Giachetti, L., D. Scaminaci, C. Bambi and R. Grandini,
2006. A review of polymerization shrinkage stress:
current techniques for posterior direct resin
restorations. J. Cont Dent Prac., 7(4): 14-20.
11. Feilzer, A.J., A.J. De Gee and C.L. Davidson, 1987.
Setting stress in composite resin in relation to
configuration of the restoration. J. Dent. Res.,
66: 1636-9.
12. Davidson, C.L., 1986. Resisting the curing
contraction with adhesive composites. J. Prosthet
Dent., 55: 446-7.
13. Guggenberger, R. and W. Weinmann, 2000.
Exploring beyondmethacrylates. Am J. Dent.,
13(5): 82D-84D.
14. Eick, J.D., S.P. Kotha and C.C. Chappelow, 2007.
Properties of silorane-based dental resins and
composites containing a stress-reducing monomer.
Dent Mater, 23(8): 1011-1017.
15. Braga, R.R. and J.L. Ferracane, 2002. Contraction
stress related to degree of conversion and reaction
kinetics. J. Dent Res., 81: 114-118.
16. Schneider, L.F.J., C.S.C. Pfeifer, S. Consani, S.A. Prahl
and J.L. Ferracane, 2008. Influence of photoinitiator
type on the rate of polymerization, degree of
conversion, hardness and yellowing of dental resin
composite. Dent Mater, 24(9): 1169-1177.
17. Condon, J.R. and J.L. Ferracane, 1998. Reduction of
composite contraction stress through non-bonded
microfiller particles. Dent Mater, 14(4): 256-260.
18. Ferracane, J.L., L.L. Ferracane and R.R. Braga, 2003.
Effect of admixed high-density polyethylene (HDPE)
spheres on contraction stress and properties of
experimental composites. J Biomed Mater Res Part B,
66(1): 318-323.
 Middle-East J. Sci. Res., 21 (1): 107-112, 2014
19. Koenigsberg, S., A. Fuks and R. Grajower, 1989. The
effect of three filling techniques on marginal leakage
around class II composite resin restorations in vitro.
Quintessence Int., 20: 117-21.
20. Lutz, F., I. Krejci, B. Luescher and T.R. Oldenburg,
1986. Improved proximal margin adaptation of class II
composite resin restorations by use of light-reflecting
wedges. Quintessence Int., 17: 659-64.
21. Klaff, D., 2001. Blending incremental and stratified
layering techniques to produce an esthetic posterior
composite resin restoration with a predictable
prognosis. J. Esthet Restor Dent., 13: 101-13.
22. Bichacho, N., 1994. The centripetal build-up for
composite resin posterior restorations. Pract
Periodontics Aesthet Dent., 6: 17-23.
23. Mehl, A., R. Hickel and K.H. Kuzelmann, 1997.
Physical properties and gap formation of light cured
composites with and without soft- start
polymerization. J. Dent., 25: 321-330.
112
24. Barros, Aguier, Santos and Loradino, 2003 .Effect of
different intensity light curing modes on
microleakage of 2 resin composite restorations. Oper
Dent , 28-5: 642-646.
25. Elimination of polymerization stresses at the margins
of posterior resin restorations : a new restorative
technique. Quintessence Int., 1986; 17: 659.
26. Laughlin, G.A., J.L. Williams and J.D. Eick, 2002. The
influence of system compliance and sample geometry
on composite polymerization shrinkage stress. J.
Biomed Mater Res., 63(5): 671-678.
27. Daronch, M., F.A. Rueggeberg and M.F. De Goes,
2005. Monomer conversion of pre-heated composite.
J. Dent Res., 84(7): 663-667.