Impact of refrigeration on the surface hardness of hybrid and microfilled composite resins

Effect of shelf-storage temperature on degree of conversion and microhardness of composite restorative materials

BACKGROUND

The pre-cure temperature is considered an important parameter that affects the polymerization kinetics and the properties of composite restoration. As dissension exists about the effect of storing composite restorative materials in refrigerator, this study aimed to assess the effect of shelf-storage temperature on degree of conversion (DC) and microhardness of three composite restorative materials with different matrix systems.

METHODS

Three commercially-available composite restorative materials were used in this study; an Ormocer-based composite (Admira Fusion, Voco GmbH), a nanoceramic composite, (Ceram.X SphereTEC One, Dentsply Sirona GmbH), and a nanohybrid composite (Tetric N-Ceram, Ivoclar Vivadent AG). Regarding DC and microhardness tests, 60 disc-shaped composite specimens for each test were randomly divided into 3 groups (n = 20) according to the restorative material used. Each group was divided into 2 subgroups (n = 10) according to the composite storage temperature; stored at room temperature or stored in the refrigerator at 4°-5 °C. DC was evaluated using a Fourier-transform infrared spectrometer coupled to an attenuated total reflectance accessory. Microhardness was evaluated using micro-Vickers hardness tester under a load of 50 g with a dwell time of 10 s. The results were analyzed by ANOVA, post-hoc LSD, and independent t-tests at a significance level of p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Regarding DC test all groups showed statistically significant differences at both storage temperature. The Ormocer-based composite had the highest mean values. There was a statistically significant difference between all room-stored groups and their corresponding groups stored at refrigerator (p < 0.05). For microhardness test, all groups exhibited also statistically significant differences at both storage temperatures with the Ormocer-based composite having the highest mean values. A statistically significant difference between both room-stored and refrigerator-stored groups has been observed also (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Refrigeration of resin-composite might have a deleterious effect on DC and microhardness of the tested composite restorative materials with different matrix systems. Moreover, the differences in the formulations of composite matrix have a potential impact on DC and microhardness.

36-Month Randomized Clinical Trial Evaluation of Preheated and Room Temperature Resin Composite

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the effect of preheating resin composites (RCs) on the clinical performance of class I restorations during a 36-month period using a split-mouth, double-blinded randomized design.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A total of 35 patients were selected. Every patient received one pair of class I nanofilled resin composite (RC, Filtek Z350 XT) posterior restorations (n=70). One side of the mouth received preheated composites; on the other side, the composite was placed in a nonheated state following the manufacturer's instructions. These restorations were evaluated at 1-week (baseline), 12-months, 24-months, and 36-months using the FDI World Dental Federation criteria. The statistical analyses were also performed using the Wilcoxon and Friedman tests with the level of significance set at 0.05.

RESULTS

After 36 months, 33 patients attended the recall visits, and 66 restorations were evaluated. The Friedman and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests revealed insignificant differences between both groups (p>0.05) for all FDI parameters. However, a significant difference was detected for staining as a criterion at 36 months (p=0.01). Moreover, a significant difference in the staining was detected when the baseline and 36 months were compared in the nonheated RC group (p=0.001). For esthetic, functional, and biological properties, the nonheated composite exhibited 93.9%, 100%, and 100% of the clinically accepted scores, respectively, and the preheated group presented 100% for all properties. Four restorations had postoperative sensitivity at baseline for nonheated (11.4%) and five for preheated (14.2%), but the postoperative sensitivity scores were considered highly acceptable at 12-, 24-, and 36-months.

CONCLUSIONS

After 36 months, preheated nanofilled RCs showed an acceptable clinical performance similar to that of the nonheated ones in class I restorations, but with better resistance to marginal staining.

Optimization of Photopolymerization Process of Dental Composites

The aim of this paper is to perform optimization of photopolymerization process of dental composites in order to obtain maximum hardness. Samples (5 mm diameter; 2, 3 and 4 mm thickness) were made of Universal Composite (UC), Bulk fill Composite (BC) and Flowable Composite (FC). Light curing of specimens was performed with 600, 1000 and 1500 mW/cm2 light intensity and an irradiation time of 20, 40 and 60 s. Vickers microhardness on the top and bottom surfaces of samples was measured. Optimization was carried out via regression analysis using QStatLab software. Photopolymerization process parameters were calculated using a specially designed MatLab software-based algorithm. For all composites, regression models for hardness on top and bottom surfaces of composite layer were established. Layer thickness as well as hardness on top and bottom surfaces of each composite was calculated for 21 curing modes varying with light intensity and irradiation time. It was established that photopolymerization guidelines only of FC manufacturer guarantee the required hardness, while recommended regimes for UC and BC did not satisfy this requirement. Tables, containing recommended light curing regimes, were developed for three composite types, guaranteeing high hardness of composite restoration. They were designed to facilitate work of dentists in dental offices.

Influence of preheating on mechanical and surface properties of nanofilled resin composites

Background

Resin composite preheating is an innovative method that could be clinically beneficial by improving the handling properties, marginal adaptation, and surface properties of uncured nanofilled resin composite materials. There is conflict and unclear information regarding the effect of preheating on the microhardness, fracture toughness and surface roughness of nanofilled resin composites. Thus, it is important to assess whether dental clinicians can adopt preheating procedures without compromising composite mechanical strength. Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of preheating on microhardness, fracture toughness and surface roughness of nanofilled resin composite.

Material and Methods

In this study, one commercial nanofilled resin composite Filtek Z350 XT was used. A total of 28 disc-shaped specimens were fabricated in a Teflon mold (10 mm diameter x 2 mm thick) for Vickers microhardness indentation test and surface roughness test. The samples were divided into two groups of 14 samples each, one group of samples was light-cured at room temperature (24ºC) without preheating (non-heated group), and the other group was light-cured after preheating (preheated group). Vickers hardness measurements of 14 specimens (n=7) either preheated or non-heated of the top and bottom surfaces was measured by means of microhardness tester by applying 100 g load for 10 s. Surface Roughness measurements (Ra) were obtained from 14 specimens (n=7) either preheated or non-heated with the atomic force microscope. Fourteen single-edge-notched-beam specimens were prepared for fracture toughness test (n=7) either preheated or non-heated with measurements (2.5 x 5 x 25 mm3) and a crack 2.12 mm in length. The specimens were tested via three-point bending mode, using a universal testing machine at crosshead speed of 1.0 mm/min until failure occurred.

Results

Independent sample t- tests revealed no significant difference between non-heated and preheated groups for all tests (p>0.05). However, for Vickers hardness test, there were significant differences between top and bottom surfaces for non-heated and preheated groups (p<0.05). Moreover, surface roughness average Ra (nm) mean values of preheated group was higher than non-heated group but no significant difference between them was found (p>0.05).

Conclusions

Preheating procedure did not negatively affect microhardness, fracture toughness and surface roughness of nanofilled resin composites so preheating is recommended for the other potential clinical advantages.

Key words:Preheating, nanofilled composites, microhardness, fracture toughness, surface roughness.

Temperature and curing time affect composite sorption and solubility

Objective:

This study evaluated the effect of temperature and curing time on composite sorption and solubility.

Material and Methods:

Seventy five specimens (8x2 mm) were prepared using a commercial composite resin (ICE, SDI). Three temperatures (10º C, 25º C and 60º C) and five curing times (5 s, 10 s, 20 s, 40 s and 60 s) were evaluated. The specimens were weighed on an analytical balance three times: A: before storage (M1); B: 7 days after storage (M2); C: 7 days after storage plus 1 day of drying (M3). The storage solution consisted of 75% alcohol/25% water. Sorption and solubility were calculated using these three weights and specimen dimensions. The data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U Tests (α=5%).

Results:

The results showed that time, temperature and their interaction influenced the sorption and solubility of the composite (p<0.05). At 60º C, the composite sorption showed an inverse relationship with the curing time (p<0.05). The composite cured for 5 s showed higher sorption for the 40 s or 60 s curing times when compared with all temperatures (p<0.05). Curing times of 20 s and 40 s showed similar sorption data for all temperatures (p>0.05). The 60º C composite temperature led to lower values of sorption for all curing times when compared with the 10º C temperature (p<0.05). The same results were found when comparing 10º C and 25º C (p<0.05), except that the 20 s and 40 s curing times behaved similarly (p>0.05). Solubility was similar at 40 s and 60 s for all temperatures (p>0.05), but was higher at 10º C than at 60º C for all curing times (p<0.05). When the composite was cured at 25º C, similar solubility values were found when comparing the 5 s and 10 s or 20 s and 40 s curing times (p>0.05).

Conclusion:

In conclusion, higher temperatures or longer curing times led to lower sorption and solubility values for the composite tested; however, this trend was only significant in specific combinations of temperature and curing times.

Effects of preheating and precooling on the hardness and shrinkage of a composite resin cured with QTH and LED

The aim of this study was to evaluate in vitro the hardness and shrinkage of a pre-cooled or preheated hybrid composite resin cured by a quartz-tungsten-halogen light (QTH) and light-emitting diode (LED) curing units. The temperature on the tip of the devices was also investigated. Specimens of Charisma resin composite were produced with a metal mold kept under 37°C. The syringes were submitted to 4°C, 23°C, and 60°C (n=20) before light-curing, which was carried out with the Optilux 501 VCL and Elipar FreeLight 2 units for 20 seconds. The specimens were kept under 37°C in a high humidity condition and darkness for 48 hours. The Knoop hardness test was carried out with a 50 gram-force (gf) load for 10 seconds, and the measurement of the shrinkage gap was carried out using an optical microscope. The data were subjected to analysis of variance and the Games-Howell test (α=0.05). The mean hardness of the groups were similar, irrespective of the temperatures (p>0.05). For 4°C and 60°C, the top surface light-cured by LED presented significantly reduced shrinkage when compared with the bottom and to both surfaces cured by QTH (p<0.05). It was concluded that the hardness was not affected by pre-cooling or preheating. However, polymerization shrinkage was slightly affected by different pre-polymerization temperatures. The QTH-curing generated greater shrinkage than LED-curing only when the composite was preheated. Different temperatures did not affect the composite hardness and shrinkage when cured by a LED curing unit.