Effect of different polishing systems and speeds on the surface roughness of resin composites.

Aims and Objectives: The objective of this study was to compare surface roughness of a nano-spherical resin composite using four different multi-step polishing disc systems at five different speeds. Materials and Methods: In total, 154 discs samples were prepared using a supra-nano spherical resin composite. The samples were divided into negative and positive control groups and the following four finishing and polishing disc systems: Sof-Lex, Bisco Finishing Discs, OptiDisc, and Super-Snap. Each polishing disc system was applied at five different speeds (2000, 5000, 10,000, 15,000, and 20,000 revolutions per minute [RPM]) (n = 7). The surface roughness of samples was measured using a profilometer. One sample from each group was evaluated by scanning electron microscopy and atomic force microscopy. Two-way analysis of variance was used to evaluate the average roughness (Ra) data from the profilometric experiments using statistical software (GraphPad Prism4-GraphPad Software; La Jolla, CA, USA). The mean values were compared using the Bonferroni test (P = 0.05). Results: The mean roughness ranged from 0.07 µm to 0.41 µm. The smoothest surfaces were obtained with OptiDisc at 20,000 RPM and Super-Snap at 20,000 RPM. The Bisco Finishing Discs group at 2,000 RPM showed the highest surface roughness values. For all polishing systems, the roughness at 20,000 RPM was lower than that at other speeds. Conclusion: Within the limitations of the present in vitro study, it can be concluded that the polishing performance was in the following order: Super-Snap > OptiDisc > Sof-Lex > Bisco Finishing Discs. In addition, the surface roughness decreased as the polishing speed increased.

Effect of different clinical applications on physico-mechanical properties of composite resins / Efeito de diferentes aplicações clínicas nas propriedades físico-mecânicas de resinas compostas

Although clinicians use fluoride agents to reduce the occurrence of caries, and surface sealing agents to protect composite restorations, the effects of these agents on composite resins have not yet been investigated. The goal of this study was to determine the effect of different surface applications (fluoride or surface sealant) on resin composites with different organic structures (Siloranes, Sonicfill, 3M Z550, Kalore). In this study, 120 discs and 120 bars made of composite resin were stored in water for three months before being thermally aged by cycling between 5°C and 55°C for 10,000 cycles. The discs were 15 mm in diameter and 1 mm thick; the bars were 25 × 2 × 2 mm. The surface sealant and fluoride were applied to the specimens, and evaluations were performed after 24h. Initial and final calculations were performed for flexural strength, microhardness, roughness, gloss, water sorption, and solubility. Silorane composite showed the lowest water sorption levels (p < 0.05) for both initial and aged groups. Silorane and SonicFill composite groups showed the lowest solubility (p < 0.05). Both before and after aging, the SonicFill group showed the highest values of flexural strength and microhardness. Silorane showed the highest roughness and lowest gloss values. Lower water sorption and solubility rates were seen on materials fabricated from hydrophobic monomers. High water sorption and solubility degrades the mechanical and surface properties. Fluoridation and surface sealant application can alter the surface properties but do not have any effect on the mechanical properties.

Embora os clínicos utilizem agentes de flúor para reduzir a ocorrência de cáries e agentes de vedação de superfície para proteger restaurações compostas, os efeitos desses agentes sobre as resinas compostas ainda não foram investigados. O objetivo deste estudo foi determinar o efeito de diferentes aplicações de superfície (fluoreto ou selante de superfície) em resinas compostas com diferentes estruturas orgânicas (Siloranes, Sonicfill, 3M Z550, Kalore). Neste estudo, 120 discos e 120 barras de resina composta foram armazenados em água por três meses antes de serem envelhecidos termicamente por ciclos alternados entre 5 °C e 55 °C por 10.000 ciclos. Os discos tinham 15 mm de diâmetro e 1 mm de espessura; as barras eram 25 × 2 × 2 mm. O selante de superfície e o flúor foram aplicados nos espécimes e as avaliações foram realizadas após 24 horas. Cálculos iniciais e finais foram realizados para resistência à flexão, microdureza, rugosidade, brilho, sorção de água e solubilidade. O compósito de silorano apresentou os menores níveis de sorção de água (p <0,05) para os grupos inicial e envelhecido. Os grupos compostos Silorane e SonicFill apresentaram a menor solubilidade (p <0,05). Tanto antes quanto depois do envelhecimento, o grupo SonicFill apresentou os maiores valores de resistência à flexão e microdureza. Silorane apresentou a maior rugosidade e menores valores de brilho. Baixas taxas de sorção e solubilidade da água foram observadas em materiais fabricados a partir de monômeros hidrofóbicos. A alta sorção e solubilidade da água degrada as propriedades mecânicas e de superfície. A fluoretação e a aplicação de selante de superfície podem alterar as propriedades da superfície, mas não afetam as propriedades mecânicas.

Three-year randomized clinical evaluation of a low-shrinkage silorane-based resin composite in non-carious cervical lesions.

OBJECTIVE: The clinical suitability of low-shrinkage resin composites for class V cavities has not been investigated in vivo. The purpose of this double-blind randomized clinical trial was to compare the clinical performances of low-shrinkage resin composite Filtek silorane and nanoceramic resin composite Ceram X mono in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) over 36 months. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two calibrated operators restored 144 NCCLs in 24 patients by using Filtek silorane with silorane system adhesive (FS/SSA) and Ceram X mono with Clearfil SE (CXM/CSE) or XP bond (CXM/XPB). Then, two blinded, calibrated evaluators assessed the restorations at the baseline and 6, 12, 24, and 36 months thereafter by using the modified US Public Health Service criteria. Data were analyzed with the Freidman and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests at a significance level of 5 % (P < 0.05). RESULTS: No restoration was associated with postoperative sensitivity or secondary caries. Further, no group showed significant changes until 12 months. The retention rates of the FS/SSA (97.5 %), CXM/CSE (97.5 %), and CXM/XPB (92.31 %) restorations did not differ significantly (P > 0.05). Six (4 CXM/XPB, 1 FS/SSA, and 1 CXM/CSE) of the 121 restorations evaluated at 36 months were completely lost. However, no significant intergroup differences were observed in the other evaluation criteria. CONCLUSION: The 3-year clinical performances of the restorative materials in NCCLs were not significantly different. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Filtek silorane is suitable for restoring NCCLs.

Randomized controlled trial of the 2-year clinical performance of a silorane-based resin composite in class 1 posterior restorations.

PURPOSE: To compare the 2-year clinical performance of a silorane-based resin composite with that of an established nanoceramic resin composite for class 1 posterior restorations. METHODS: In this randomized controlled study, 100 class 1 molar cavities were prepared in 50 subjects. Each subject received a restoration with Filtek Silorane and Ceram.X Duo in different quadrants. The restorations were evaluated using the modified USPHS criteria at baseline and 6, 12, and 24 months. Parametric changes over the 2-year period were assessed with the Friedman test. The baseline and recall scores were compared by using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (P < 0.05). RESULTS: No subject developed secondary caries or postoperative sensitivity. Further, the resin composites showed no significant differences in all the evaluated parameters over 2 years (P > 0.05). At 2 years, four Filtek Silorane and seven Ceram.X Duo restorations had Bravo scores for anatomic form, marginal adaptation, and surface texture (P < 0.05); however, these changes were mainly the effect of scoring shifts from Alfa to Bravo. Overall, both materials showed good clinical results with predominantly Alfa scores.

The effects of halogen and light-emitting diode light curing on the depth of cure and surface microhardness of composite resins.

AIM: Light-emitting diode light curing units (LED LCUs) have become more popular than halogen LCUs in routine dental restorative treatment. The aim of the study was to compare the effects of two conventional halogen (Hilux Plus and VIP) and two LED (Elipar FreeLight 2 and Smart Lite) light curing units on the depth of cure and the microhardness of various esthetic restorative materials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The curing depth and microhardness of a compomer (Dyract Extra), a resin-modified glass ionomer (Vitremer), a packable composite (Sculpt It), an ormocer (Admira), a hybrid composite (Tetric Ceram), two microhybrid composites (Miris and Clearfil Photo Posterior) and, a nanofil composite (Filtek Supreme) were determined using a scraping method and a hardness tester. A total of 320 samples were prepared using the eight different materials (n = 10 samples for each subgroup). The scraping test was based on ISO 4049:2000. Vicker's microhardness testing was carried out using hardness tester (Zwick 3212). Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), Bonferroni and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests. RESULTS: Best microhardness results were obtained with the LED light curing units and Tetric EvoCeram and Filtek Supreme achieved the highest hardness values. The nanofil composite, Filtek Supreme, showed the best curing depth results in all the tested light curing systems. CONCLUSIONS: The LEDs were found to be more successful than the halogen units with respect to both curing depth and microhardness properties.

Microleakage of repaired class V silorane and nano-hybrid composite restorations after preparation with erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser and diamond bur.

The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the microleakage of repaired class V resin composite restorations prepared either by Er:YAG laser or a diamond bur. Ninety-six intact human molar teeth were randomly distributed into eight groups. In the first four groups, class V cavities (3 × 3 × 3 mm) prepared on the buccal and lingual surfaces of the teeth using an erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser (VersaWave, HOYA ConBio, Japan). Similar class V cavities were prepared in the second four groups using a diamond bur (S-Class, Komet, UK). Teeth in groups 1, 2, and 5, 6 were restored with a nano-ceramic composite (Ceram.X duo, DENTSPLY), whereas a silorane material (Filtek Silorane, 3M ESPE) was used to restore cavities in groups 3, 4, and 7, 8. Two different adhesive systems (XP Bond, DENTSPLY, and Silorane System Adhesive, 3M ESPE) were also used. All specimens were aged for 7 days. New cavities (3 × 3 × 3 mm) were prepared adjacent to the old restorations with Er:YAG laser (groups I-IV) or diamond bur (groups V-VIII). Different repair materials were then applied to the new cavities using the previous two restorative materials and two adhesive systems. All teeth were subjected to thermocycling (5,000 cycles between 5 and 55°C) and axial loadcycling (30 N, 1 Hz, 2,000 cycles). Specimens were immersed in 50% w/w silver nitrate solution. Teeth were sectioned longitudinally in buccolingual direction. Stereomicroscope (Nikon SMZ 800) and SEM (JEOL JSM 5600) were used to evaluate the microleakage that existed at the interface between the old restorations and the repair materials. Data were analyzed statistically with one-way ANOVA and Tukey tests (p < 0.05). Even though no statistically significant differences were found between any of the groups, the cavities repaired with different restoratives showed slight microleakage, especially those prepared by Er:YAG laser (p > 0.05). No microleakage scores were obtained in the groups repaired with Filtek Silorane/Filtek Silorane and Ceram.X/Ceram.X. All the substances tested can be used as repair materials for immediate repair after Er:YAG laser and diamond bur. All substances tested in this study can be used as immediate repair materials after cavity preparations with Er:YAG laser or diamond bur.

Effect of Thermo-mechanical Load Cycling on Microleakage in Class II Ormocer Restorations.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this in vitro study was to evaluate the marginal sealing ability of an ormocer in comparison with a hybrid composite when using thermocycling and load cycling procedures together in the study design. METHODS: Modified proximal Class II cavities were prepared on the mesial and distal surfaces of twenty-two human premolars. Each tooth was restored with Admira and contralaterally with TPH Spectrum. Half of all of the teeth were subjected to thermo-mechanical load cycling. After dye penetration, longitudinal sections in mesio-distal direction were prepared and examined under a stereomicroscope. Data were analyzed with Mann Whitney U test. RESULTS: The results showed that the thermo-mechanical load cycling caused a statistically significant increase in gingival microleakage when compared with the non-thermocycled and non-loaded restorations for both the materials Admira (P=0.006) and TPH Spectrum (P=0.023). CONCLUSIONS: Simultaneous load cycling and thermocycling are decisive factors in the in vitro assessment of gingival microleakage, which still remains to be a clinical problem even with the ormocer system Admira.

Clinical evaluation of an ormocer, a nanofill composite and a hybrid composite at 2 years.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the 2-year clinical performance of an ormocer, a new nanofill composite and as a control a conventional hybrid composite restorations in small Class I cavities of permanent molars. METHODS: 90 Class I maxillary cavities were prepared in 90 patients. Cavities were restored incrementally in oblique layers with ormocer (Admira), nanofill (Filtek Supreme), or hybrid (Renew) composite material. Restorations were examined using the United States Public Health Service modified Ryge criteria at baseline, after 6 months, 1 year and 2 years. The changes in the parameters during the 2-year period were assessed with Friedman test analysis. Comparison of the baseline scores with those at the recall periods was evaluated by Wilcoxon signed rank test; the level of significance was set at P< 0.05. RESULTS: None of the restorative materials exhibited secondary caries or postoperative sensitivity at the 6-month, 1-year or 2-year recall (P> 0.05). After 2 years, except the one failed Admira restoration, no other criteria was clinically unacceptable.

Two-year clinical evaluation of ormocer and nanofill composite with and without a flowable liner.

PURPOSE: The aim of this clinical follow-up study was to determine the clinical performance of ormocer and a new nanofill composite material, lined or not lined with flowable composites, after 2 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Occlusal restorations (n = 108) were placed in 54 patients with two symmetric restorations per patient. In one of the two restorations in each patient, cavities were first lined with the flowable composite material Admira Flow or Filtek Flow after applying the two-step total-etch one-bottle adhesive (Admira Bond) or single bond adhesive (Single Bond). Admira or Filtek Supreme was then applied. Restorations were examined using the USPHS modified Ryge criteria for retention, color matching, cavosurface marginal discoloration, anatomic form, marginal adaptation, surface texture, and secondary caries by two previously calibrated dentists. The overall performance of the restorations was evaluated by Wilcoxon signed ranks test. The chi-square test was used to determine differences in the performance of the restorations in which the flowable composite was applied first. RESULTS: There was no secondary caries or postoperative sensitivity in any of the restorations at the 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year follow-up examinations. After 2 years, only one Admira restoration had failed; all other restorations were available for evaluation. There were no statistically significant differences among the materials regardless of the prior use of flowable material (p > 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the restorations with and without the prior application of flowable materials (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The clinical performance of occlusal restorations using ormocer or nanofill composite did not benefit from the additional use of the flowable composite. Both of the restorative materials exhibited ideal clinical performance.