Polymerization shrinkage and associated stress remain key limitations of direct composite resin restorations in posterior teeth. Volumetric shrinkage of 2-4% may generate stresses that exceed the bond strength at tooth–restoration interfaces, particularly in large occlusal cavities with high configuration (C-factor) ratios [1,2]. Incremental placement techniques has been proposed to mitigate stress and improve adaptation [3,4]. However, large occlusal lesions still pose challenges due to broad pulpal floors and extensive bonded surfaces [5,6].

To further reduce shrinkage stress, the split-increment technique was introduced, wherein a horizontal increment is diagonally divided to create unbonded internal surfaces that act as stress reservoirs during polymerization [7-9]. Studies indicate that this approach improves marginal sealing and reduces interfacial defects [10,11]. Newer adaptations for bulk-fill composites, including the semi-split technique and methods incorporating delayed gap closure, have shown additional stress reductions by allowing extended unrestrained shrinkage and viscoelastic stress relaxation before final cavity constraint is restored [12-14].

Building on these biomechanical principles, this manuscript describes a modified application of segmentation and delayed gap closure specifically tailored for conventional composite resin in posterior teeth, with a novel simplification: only the first increment requires segmentation. Subsequent increments are placed conventionally, streamlining the procedure without compromising stress management.

It is important to emphasize that this paper does not present new experimental data. Rather, its aim is to synthesize existing evidence from the literature, introduce a novel theoretical model, and organize relevant clinical and physical concepts into a coherent explanatory framework to support both understanding and practical application.

Rationale

The modified split-increment technique integrates two synergistic mechanisms:

1. Segmented first increment to reduce C-factor: Creating a diagonal gap produces unbonded internal surfaces that allow each segment to shrink toward the gap rather than pulling against bonded walls [15-18]. This reduces interfacial stress during the first curing cycle.
2. Delayed gap closure to exploit post-polymerization shrinkage: Shrinkage continues for minutes after light exposure. Allowing a 5-minute delay before filling the gap permits ongoing segmental contraction to occur unrestrained, and viscoelastic stress to relax before the system becomes fully confined [12-14].

Once this foundational increment has undergone a controlled shrinkage cycle and stress dissipation, subsequent increments impose far less interfacial stress and do not require segmentation. 19 Thus, the technique balances enhanced biomechanics with practical efficiency.

The Modified Technique (Step-by-Step Protocol)

1. Placement of the first horizontal (stress-relief) increment

• Prepare occlusal cavity and apply bonding following standard operative principles.
• Place a 2 mm thick composite layer over the pulpal floor.
• Using a suitable instrument, create a diagonal gap approx. 1.5 mm wide and equal in depth to the increment (2 mm), dividing the increment into two triangular segments.
• Leave the gap unfilled.

2. First (primary) light cure (gap left open)

• Light-cure the segmented increment while maintaining the gap open.

3. Delay period for stress dissipation

• Leave the gap unfilled for 5 minutes to allow post-cure shrinkage, stress relaxation and lateral deformation toward the unbonded surfaces.

4. Gap closure and secondary cure

• Fill the gap with the same composite.
• Light-cure thoroughly.
• This completes the stress-relieved foundational increment.

5. Placement of successive increments (simplified phase)

• Add remaining composite using horizontal increments 2 mm thick.
• No segmentation is required for these layers.
• Each increment is immediately light cured before placing the next.
• Continue until full occlusal anatomy is restored.

6. Immediate finishing and polishing

• Perform occlusal adjustment, contouring, marginal refinement, and polishing using standard protocols.

The following table contrasts the “original” split-increment technique with its “modified” version incorporating a delayed gap-closure step. This comparison highlights how the modification builds on the foundational principles of the original method-reducing C-factor and directing shrinkage toward an internal gap-while adding a temporal component designed to further manage early polymerization stress. By outlining differences in procedure, stress-control mechanisms, and expected clinical outcomes, the table provides a concise overview of how the modofied technique enhances the biomechanical rationale and potential performance of posterior composite restorations.

Table 1.A: Concise Overview Comparing the Split-Increment Technique Before and After the Delayed Gap-Closure Modification.

The following two figures present the “original” split-increment technique (Figure 1) and the “modified” version incorporating a delayed gap-closure step (Figure 2).

Figure 1. Illustrating the “Original” Split-Increment Technique Used for Occlusal Composite Restoration.

Step 1: A 2.0 mm horizontal composite increment is placed over the pulpal floor.

Step 2: A diagonal gap is created in the uncured increment to split it into two triangular segments, and primary curing.

Step 3: The diagonal gap is filled immediately with the same composite resin and secondary cured.

Step 4: Subsequent 2.0 mm horizontal increments are placed and individually light-cured immediately without additional splitting, followed by finishing and polishing of the completed restoration.

Figure 2. Illustrating the “Modified” Split-Increment Technique Used for Occlusal Composite Restoration.

Step 1: A 2.0 mm horizontal composite increment is placed over the pulpal floor.

Step 2: A diagonal gap is created in the uncured increment to split it into two triangular segments, and primary curing while leaving the gap unfilled.

Step 3: The diagonal gap is left unfilled for a 5-minute period to allow unrestrained polymerization shrinkage and stress relaxation.

Step 4: The diagonal gap is then filled with the same composite resin and secondary cured, completing the stress-relieved foundational increment.

Step 5: Successive 2.0 mm horizontal increments are placed and individually light-cured without additional splitting, followed by finishing and polishing of the completed restoration.

A concise overview of the recommended gap closure delay in the modified split-increment composite restoration technique is provided in the following table.

Table 2: Overview of the Recommended Gap Closure Delay (First Increment) In the Modified Split-Increment Technique.

Stress reduction remains central to successful composite restorations, especially in large occlusal cavities. Incremental techniques reduce shrinkage magnitude but may not adequately address polymerization dynamics in the first increment, where stress is most critical due to the high C-factor [1,2].

Biomechanical Significance of the Foundational Increment

The first increment is the primary determinant of stress transmission at the adhesive interface. Diagonal segmentation and delayed gap closure reduce stress by offering free surfaces for shrinkage flow and prolonging the delay period during which shrinkage occurs unopposed and stress is relaxaed [18,19]. This creates a mechanically stable base that can absorb minor stresses from upper layers [20].

Benefits of gap closure delay

• The polymerization reaction and the greatest rate of conversion occur in the first minutes after light exposure; the composite is most able to flow and relax viscoelastic stress during that early “post-cure” period. Allowing a few minutes before final confinement (gap closure) lets the already-cured segments undergo most of their early shrinkage and outward deformation, which reduces the instantaneous interfacial stress when the final mass is cured [21].
• Laboratory and technique papers describing the diagonal/split/delayed-closure methods report a practical delay of 5 minutes as a compromise between clinically meaningful stress-relief and workflow practicality [12].

Why Later Increments Do Not Require Segmentation

After the foundational layer has undergone controlled viscoelastic stress relaxation, later increments exert significantly less shrinkage-induced traction on deeper cavity walls. Their adhesion is supported by a stable underlying polymer network rather than a compliant, uncured substrate. Thus, the remainder of the restoration can follow conventional incremental curing without compromising mechanical behavior. There is no need to do increment splitting. The shrinkage stresses generated in each of the subsequent composite increments would not threaten the adhesive integrity and would allow it to reach the maximum strength. This is followed by immediate finishing and polishing [18-19].

Comparison with Other Stress-Reduction Techniques

The modified technique provides several advantages over:

• Traditional incremental layering: improved stress relief.
• Bulk-fill composites: lower shrinkage force but still curing in large volumes [22,23].
• Full multi-layer segmentation: more complex and time-consuming.

The modified method achieves a balance between biomechanical optimization and clinical practicality.

Limitations

• The 5-minute delay extends chair time.
• Technique sensitivity exists in forming a consistent diagonal gap.
• Empirical validation is needed to quantify stress reductions with different composite formulations.

Clinical Implications

• May reduce postoperative sensitivity by decreasing interfacial stress.
• May enhance marginal integrity and long-term stability, particularly in deep or high C-factor cavities.
• Requires minimal additional instrumentation or materials.
• Provides a pragmatic compromise: enhanced biomechanics in the deepest layer, simplicity overhead.

Future Directions

Further research may include:

• In-vitro shrinkage stress testing and interfacial gap measurements.
• Finite element modeling of segmental deformation during the delay interval.
• Comparative clinical trials versus conventional incremental and bulk filling methods.
• Studies examining materials with different polymerization kinetics to identify ideal candidates.

The modified split-increment technique combing incremental segmentation with delayed gap closure provides a biomechanically grounded method for managing polymerization shrinkage stress in incrementally placed posterior composite restorations. By applying segmentation and delayed closure only to the foundational increment while simplifying all subsequent layers, the approach combines improved interfacial stability with procedural efficiency. This technique has the potential to improve restoration durability and patient comfort, warranting further empirical evaluation.

1. Jedrychowski JR, Bleier RG, Caputo AA. Shrinkage stresses associated with incremental composite filling techniques. ASDC J Dent Children. 1998; 65:111-15.
2. Kleverlaan CJ, Feilzer AJ. Polymerization shrinkage and contraction stress of dental resin composites. Dent Mater. 2005; 21: 1150-7.
3. Feilzer AJ, de Gee AJ, Davidson CL. Setting stress in composite resin in relation to configuration of the restoration. J Dent Res. 1987; 66: 1636-39.
4. Braga RR, Ferracane JL. Alternatives in polymerization contraction stress management. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 2004; 15: 176-84.
5. Opdam NJ, Feilzer AJ, Roeters JJ, Smale I. Class I restorations made with different materials: Effects on cuspal flexure. J Dent. 1998; 26: 337-43.
6. Ferracane JL. Resin composite-state of the art. Dent Mater. 2011; 27: 29-38.
7. Hassan KA, Khier SE. Split-increment horizontal layering: a simplified placement technique for direct posterior resin restorations. Gen Dent. 2005; 53: 406-9.
8. Hassan KA, Khier SE. Composite resin restorations of large class II cavities using split-increment horizontal placement technique. Gen Dent. 2006; 54: 172-7.
9. Hassan KA, Khier S. Split-increment technique: an alternative approach for large cervical composite resin restorations. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2007; 8: 121-8.
10. Hassan K. Polymerization shrinkage stress reduction in direct occlusal composite restoration placed using split-increment horizontal technique–case report. Web med Central DENTISTRY. 2010; 1: WMC00626.
11. Khier SE, Hassan KA. Efficacy of composite restorative techniques in marginal sealing of extended Class V cavities. ISRN Dent. 2011; 180197.
12. Hassan KA, Khier SE. Delaying diagonal gap closure in semi-split bulk filling technique: a simple innovative modification for considerable reduction of shrinkage stress in direct occlusal composite restorations. Dent Oral Health Care. 2025; 4: 1-5.
13. Hassan KA, Khier SE. The Diagonal Gap: Characteristics, Benefits of its Delayed Closure and Effects on Large Posterior Bulk-Fill Resin Composite Restorations-A Review. J Stoma Dent Res. 2025; 3: 1-4.
14. Hassan KA, Khier SE. Three-Step Diagonal Gap Concept: A Shift in Semi-Split Bulk Filling Technique for Mitigating Shrinkage Stress and Marginal Gaps in Direct Bulk-Fill Resin Composite Restorations-An Overview, West J Dent Sci. 2025; 2: 103-6.
15. Hassan KA, Khier SE. A review on incremental techniques for placing direct occlusal and proximal composite restorations. Dental Oral Health Int J. 2019; 1: 1-11.
16. Hassan KA, Khier SE. Revisiting the concept of diagonal pre-cure splitting of horizontal increments in direct composite restorations. J Oral Health Dent Res. 2020; 1: 1-6.
17. Hassan KA, Khier SE. Formation of Diagonal Gaps as Stress-Relieving Sites: Rethinking the Concept of Increment Splitting in Direct Occlusal Composite Restorations. J Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2021; 1: 1-7.
18. Hassan KA, Khier SE. Decoupling with split-increment: An alternative biomimetic protocol for improving pulpal floor adaptation of direct large composite restorations. J Clin Res Dent. 2022; 4: 1-5.
19. Hassan, KA, Khier, SE. The first composite increment: Dependency on placement technique for interaction behavior with maturing dentin-adhesive bond at pulpal floors in deep occlusal cavities-A comprehensive review. Saudi J Oral Sciences. 2024; 11: 73-83.
20. Hassan KA, Khier SE. Direct bulk?fill resin composite restorations: Characterization of pulpal floor gaps in deep occlusal cavities and current restorative minimization strategies-An overview. Saudi J Oral Sci 2023; 10: 59-65.
21. Schneider LF, Cavalcante LM, Silikas N. Shrinkage Stresses Generated during Resin-Composite Applications: A Review. J Dent Biomech. 2010; 131630.
22. Hassan KA, Khier SE. Semi-split bulk filling technique in large occlusal bulk-fill resin composite restorations. J Oral Med Dent Res. 2020; 1: 1-8.
23. Hassan KA, Khier SE. The Semi-Split Delayed Gap Closure Technique: Temporal Synchronization with Dark Curing Viscoelastic Relaxation to Preserve Adhesive Interface Integrity in Large Occlusal Restorations. Genesis J Dent Rep. 2025; 2: 1-17.