Color Stability of Bioactive Restorative Material vs Nanohybrid Resin Composite: An In Vitro Study.

AIM: This study aimed to assess the color stability of bioactive restorative materials vs nanohybrid resin composites after 3 months of immersion in three frequently consumed beverages. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty disk-shaped specimens of Giomer dental restorative material (Shofu, Japan) and nanohybrid resin composite (Tokuyama, Japan) were performed using a Teflon mold. Super-Snap system (Shofu, Japan) was utilized to finish and polish the specimens to be preserved for 24 hours in distilled water at 37°C. The samples had been divided into three subgroups (Coffee, tea, Pepsi) (n = 5). The initially displayed color measurements of the samples were performed using a spectrophotometer (VITA Easyshade® V). After 7 days, 30 days, and 90 days, color measurements were repeated, and the E of each sample was estimated. E of each sample was calculated. RESULTS: The Giomer group showed statistically significant higher E values than the nanohybrid resin composite where the p-value was ≤0.0001. Tea subgroup showed the highest statistically significant E values in both groups where the p-value was ≤ 0.0001. The highest statistically significant color change was recorded at 3 months. CONCLUSION: The color of bioactive restorative material is less stable if compared with nanohybrid resin composite. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: As tea and coffee are popular beverages, particularly in Middle Eastern nations, dentists must advise patients about the color change of resin restorations. Patients are advised to brush their teeth immediately after consuming these beverages. How to cite this article: Saber EH, Abielhassan MH, Abed YA, et al. Color Stability of Bioactive Restorative Material vs Nanohybrid Resin Composite: An In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024;25(3):221-225.

Apoptotic effect of different self-etch dental adhesives on odontoblasts in cell cultures.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the potential cytotoxicity (apoptosis-induction) of three types of self-etch dental adhesives: two-component one-step (Xeno III), two-component two-steps (Clearfil Protect Bond) and one-component one-step (Xeno V) on cultured odontoblasts. METHODS: Each adhesive was prepared to simulate its clinical manipulation. Cured sterile individual masses were immersed in DMEM and left at 37 °C for 24 h. Then a volume of 100 µL of the extract medium was added to the cultured odontoblasts and incubated for additional 24 h, 48 h and 72 h, respectively. Acridine orange-propidium iodide (AO-PI) labelling was employed to assess the proportion of dead to total number of cells. In addition, an in situ apoptosis detection kit was used to evaluate the DNA cleavage and chromatin condensation employing the immunohistochemical (IHC) technique. Statistical analysis of the data was performed using one-way ANOVA. RESULTS: Both apoptosis evaluation methods revealed comparable results with the exception that IHC showed 5-7% less number of dead cells when compared to similar groups evaluated by AO-PI. The percentages of dead to total cells after treatment with Clearfil Protect Bond, Xeno III and Xeno V, were significantly different from the percentage of dead cells after treatment with DMEM alone (-ve control), P value <0.05 and Xeno V dental adhesive had the weakest cytotoxic effect on odontoblasts followed by Xeno III especially after 24 h of incubation. Clearfil Protect Bond had the strongest cytotoxic effect on odontoblasts that was almost closer to that of Staurosporine in DMEM (+ve control). CONCLUSION: All tested dental adhesives had remarkable adverse effect on the odontoblasts in vitro; this might be of concern when applied clinically in deep cavities where such cytotoxic chemicals become in close contact to dental pulp. Therefore, further in vivo studies on animal models are recommended to support or refute these in vitro findings.