Radiopacity of Methacrylate and Silorane Composite Resins Using a Digital Radiographic System.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the radiopacity of silorane and methacrylate resin composites, comparing them to the enamel, dentin, and aluminum penetrometer using a digital image. From six resin composites (Filtek™ P90, Filtek Z350, Filtek Z350 XT flow, Tetric Ceram, TPH Spectrum, and SureFil SDR flow) cylindrical disks (5 × 1 mm) were made and radiographed by a digital method, together with a 15-step aluminum step-wedge and a 1 mm slice of human tooth. The degree of radiopacity of each image was quantified using digital image processing. The mean values of the shades of gray of the tested materials were measured and the equivalent width of aluminum was calculated for each resin. The results of our work yielded the following radiopacity values, given here in descending order: Tetric Ceram > TPH > SDR > Z350 > Z350 flow > P90 > enamel > dentin. The radiopacity of the materials was different both for the enamel and for the dentin, except for resin P90, which was no different than enamel. In conclusion, silorane-based resin exhibited a radiopacity higher than dentin and closest to the enamel; a large portion of the methacrylate-based flow and conventional resins demonstrated greater radiopacity in comparison to dentin and enamel.

Effect of photoactivation mode on the hardness and bond strength of methacrylate- and Silorane monomer-based composites.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the Knoop hardness (KH) and the bond strength (BS) at the tooth/restoration interface of conventional methacrylate- (Filtek Supreme) and silorane-based (Filtek P90) composites photoactivated by different methods using an LED Freelight 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Bond strength was tested in a universal testing machine by the "push-out" test in restored cavities measuring 2 × 1.5 × 2 mm with a C-factor of 2.2, prepared in 60 bovine teeth. To restore the cavities, the respective adhesive system of each composite was used (Single Bond 2 and P90 system adhesives). The composites were photoactivated by 3 different methods: continuous light: 40 s at 1000 mW/cm²; soft-start: 10 s at 150 mW/cm² + 38 s at 1000 mW/cm²; pulse delay: 5 s at 150 mW/cm², followed by a 3-min wait (without photoactivation) and 39 s at 1000 mW/cm². Before the push-out test was performed, the KH was analyzed at the top and bottom of the restorations. Data were statistically anaylzed using ANOVA and Tukey's test. RESULTS: The photoactivation methods produced no differences in BS or KH in the same composite, while Filtek P90 (28.0 MPa) showed higher BS values than Filtek Supreme (22.3 MPa) and a lower KH. CONCLUSION: The composite Filtek P90 was capable of increasing bond strength, but presented lower Knoop hardness.

Effect of the erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser or diamond bur cavity preparation on the marginal microleakage of class V cavities restored with different adhesives and composite systems.

The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the microleakage of Er:YAG laser and diamond bur on different bonding systems in class V restorations. Class V cavities were prepared with Er:YAG laser or diamond bur on 80 intact human molars. Teeth were randomly distributed into ten groups and cavities were restored with CeramX duo (DENTSPLY) or Filtek Silorane (3M/ESPE) using different bonding materials (One Coat 7.0 (Coltène), XP Bond (DENTSPLY), Clearfil Protect Bond (Kuraray), AdperSE (3M/ESPE), and Silorane System Adhesive (3M/ESPE). All specimens were subjected to thermocycling and load cycling. After being immersed in silver nitrate dye, the specimens were sectioned. Microleakage was evaluated by stereomicroscope and SEM. Data were statistically analyzed by one-way ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis, and Mann-Whitney tests. Statistically differences were found between groups (p > 0.05) and cavities prepared with the Er:YAG laser showed higher microleakage than diamond bur. The microleakage of different bonding systems was influenced by the choice of diamond bur or Er:YAG laser for class V composite cavity preparation.

Influence of Light-curing Parameters on Biofilm Development and Flexural Strength of a Silorane-based Composite.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the differences in biological and mechanical performances of a silorane-based and a methacrylate-based composite. Another aim was to assess the influence of light-curing time and light-curing intensity on in vitro biofilm formation and flexural strength of the two tested composites. METHODS: Experiment 1: 432 specimens obtained from a silorane-based composite and from a standard methacrylate-based composite were divided into six groups and light-cured for 10, 20, 30, 40, 60, or 80 seconds, using one of two light-curing intensities, 400 mW/cm(2) or 800 mW/cm(2). At 24 hours, a monospecific Streptococcus mutans biofilm adherent to the surfaces of the samples was obtained. Then, a colorimetric technique (MTT assay) was used to evaluate the adherent viable biomass. Two samples per group were observed using confocal laser scanning microscopy. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey tests were used to analyze the results (p<0.05). Experiment 2: 192 bar-shaped specimens were obtained and light-cured as in the previous experiment. A three-point bend test using a universal testing machine was performed to obtain flexural strength values. ANOVA and Tukey tests were used to analyze the results (p<0.05). RESULTS: In experiment 1, a highly significant difference (p<0.0001) in biofilm development was shown between silorane-based and methacrylate-based composites. In fact, the silorane-based composite exhibited better biological performance. Significant differences were also found between the two light-curing intensities (p<0.018) and for curing times (p<0.0001): silorane-based composite light-cured for 80 seconds at 800 mW/cm(2) light-curing intensity showed the lowest biofilm development. In experiment 2, a significant difference in flexural strength (p<0.0318) was only found between the different composites. Nevertheless, both resin composites showed flexural strength values in accordance with International Organization for Standardization guidelines even after 10 seconds of light-curing time. CONCLUSIONS: Silorane-based composite was less prone to biofilm development compared with a methacrylate-based composite. Acceptable flexural strength values for both composites were obtained after 10 seconds of light-curing time.

Microshear bond strength of preheated silorane- and methacrylate-based composite resins to dentin.

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of preheating on microshear bond strength (MSBS) of silorane and methacrylate-based composite resins to human dentin. The teeth were randomly divided into three main groups: (1) composite resins were heated upto 68 °C; (2) cooled to 4 °C; and (3) control [room temperature (RT)]. Each group was then randomly subdivided into four subgroups according to adhesive system used [Solobond M (Voco), All Bond SE (Bisco), Clearfil SE Bond (CSE) (Kuraray), Silorane adhesive system (SAS) (3M ESPE)]. Resin composite cylinders were formed (0.9 mm diameter × 0.7 mm length) and MSBS of each specimen was tested. The preheated groups exhibited the highest MSBS (p < 0.001) and the groups cooled to 4 °C exhibited the lowest MSBS (p < 0.001). The CSE showed higher MSBS than the other adhesives (p < 0.001). This study concludes that preheating of composite resins may be an alternative way to increase the MSBS of composites on dentin.

Cytotoxicity and cytokine expression induced by silorane and methacrylate-based composite resins.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate cytotoxicity and cytokine production induced by light-cured or non-light-cured methacrylate-based and silorane composite resins in RAW 264.7 macrophages. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Cells were stimulated with the extracts from light-cured or non-light-cured composite resins. After incubation for 24 h, cytotoxicity was assessed with the lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and methyl thiazolyl tetrazolium (MTT) assays, and total protein was quantified using the Lowry method. TNF-α detection was examined with an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) conducted with cell supernatants after cell stimulation for 6, 12, and 24 h. Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's post hoc test (α=0.05). RESULTS: KaloreTM and FiltekTM Silorane were cytotoxic with or without light curing (p<0.05) after 24 h of incubation. KaloreTM stimulated the early production of TNF-α in comparison with control (p<0.05), whereas FiltekTM Silorane did not affect TNF-α levels after 6 and 12 h (p>0.05). However, after 24 h FiltekTM Silorane inhibited the production of TNF-α (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: KaloreTM and FiltekTM Silorane were cytotoxic regardless of light curing. The extract obtained from KaloreTM after 15 days of incubation stimulated the production of TNF-α, unlike that obtained from FiltekTM Silorane.

Does the light source affect the repairability of composite resins?

The aim of this study was to examine the effect of the light source on the microshear bond strength of different composite resins repaired with the same substrate. Thirty cylindrical specimens of each composite resin--Filtek Silorane, Filtek Z550 (3M ESPE), Gradia Direct Anterior (GC), and Aelite Posterior (BISCO)--were prepared and light-cured with a QTH light curing unit (LCU). The specimens were aged by thermal cycling and divided into three subgroups according to the light source used--QTH, LED, or PAC (n = 10). They were repaired with the same substrate and a Clearfil Repair Kit (Kuraray). The specimens were light-cured and aged for 1 week in distilled water at 37 °C. The microshear bond strength and failure modes were assessed. There was no significant difference in the microshear bond strength values among the composite resins, except for the Filtek Silorane group that showed significantly lower bond strength values when polymerized with the PAC unit compared to the QTH or LED unit. In conclusion, previously placed dimethacrylate-based composites can be repaired with different light sources; however, if the composite to be repaired is silorane-based, then using a QTH or LED device may be the best option.

Cytotoxicity and cytokine expression induced by silorane and methacrylate-based composite resins

ABSTRACT The successful use of composite resins in Dentistry depends on physicochemical properties, but also on the biological compatibility of resins, because of the close association between pulp and dentin. Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate cytotoxicity and cytokine production induced by light-cured or non-light-cured methacrylate-based and silorane composite resins in RAW 264.7 macrophages. Material and Methods Cells were stimulated with the extracts from light-cured or non-light-cured composite resins. After incubation for 24 h, cytotoxicity was assessed with the lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and methyl thiazolyl tetrazolium (MTT) assays, and total protein was quantified using the Lowry method. TNF-α detection was examined with an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) conducted with cell supernatants after cell stimulation for 6, 12, and 24 h. Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s post hoc test (α=0.05). Results KaloreTM and FiltekTM Silorane were cytotoxic with or without light curing (p<0.05) after 24 h of incubation. KaloreTM stimulated the early production of TNF-α in comparison with control (p<0.05), whereas FiltekTM Silorane did not affect TNF-α levels after 6 and 12 h (p>0.05). However, after 24 h FiltekTM Silorane inhibited the production of TNF-α (p<0.05). Conclusions KaloreTM and FiltekTM Silorane were cytotoxic regardless of light curing. The extract obtained from KaloreTM after 15 days of incubation stimulated the production of TNF-α, unlike that obtained from FiltekTM Silorane.