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

Effect of Preheating and Vibration on Microhardness and Microleakage of Microhybrid Resin Composite (In Vitro Study)

BACKGROUND: Preheating and sonic vibration are two methods for the treatment of microhybrid resin composites that may effect on their mechanical and physical properties. AIM: This study was conducted to assess the effect of using preheating and sonic vibration on microhardness and microleakage of microhybrid resin composite METHODS AND MATERIALS: For microhardness test, a total of 30 samples of resin composite discs were prepared. Samples were divided into three groups according to the method of treatment of resin composite, controlled group (T0), preheated group (T1), and sonic vibration group (T2). Surface microhardness values were evaluated at baseline and after thermocycling. For microleakage test, a total of 30 Class-V cavities were prepared on the labial surfaces of extracted human anterior teeth. The cavities were then divided into three groups according to the method of resin composite treatment as mentioned before in the microhardness test. All samples were sectioned; then two-dimensional cross-sectional images from each sample. Each cross-sectional image was analyzed using Image J software to quantify interfacial microleakage at the cavity floor. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Two-way ANOVA analysis was used to test the effects of thermocycling on three groups of each test. One-way ANOVA was used to compare between three different methods of resin composite treatment. RESULTS: For microhardness at baseline revealed that the highest mean value was recorded for the control group, followed by the sonic vibration group meanwhile, the lowest mean value was recorded for the sonic vibration group, followed by preheated group at microleakage test. CONCLUSION: Preheating and sonic vibration of microhybrid resin composite does not improve its microhardness; however, sonic vibration provides better marginal adaptation than the preheating and the conventional methods.

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.

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.

The effect of preheating resin composites on surface hardness: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

This paper presents a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of preheating on the hardness of nanofilled, nanoceramic, nanohybrid, and microhybrid resin composites.

Materials and Methods

An electronic search of papers on MEDLINE/PubMed, ScienceDirect, and EBSCOhost was performed. Only in vitro studies were included. Non-English studies, case reports, clinical trials, and review articles were excluded. A meta-analysis of the reviewed studies was conducted to quantify differences in the microhardness of the Z250 microhybrid resin composite using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software.

Results

Only 13 studies met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. The meta-analysis showed that there were significant differences between the non-preheated and preheated modes for both the top and bottom surfaces of the specimens (p < 0.05). The microhardness of the Z250 resin composite on the top surface in the preheated mode (78.1 ± 2.9) was higher than in the non-preheated mode (67.4 ± 4.0; p < 0.001). Moreover, the microhardness of the Z250 resin composite on the bottom surface in the preheated mode (71.8 ± 3.8) was higher than in the non-preheated mode (57.5 ± 5.7, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Although the results reported in the reviewed studies showed great variability, sufficient scientific evidence was found to support the hypothesis that preheating can improve the hardness of resin composites.

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.

Influence of a Repeated Preheating Procedure on Mechanical Properties of Three Resin Composites

The aim of this study was to assess the flexural strength, flexural elastic modulus and Vickers microhardness of three resin composites prepared at room temperature or cured after one or repeated preheating cycles to a temperature of 39°C. Three resin composites were evaluated: Enamel Plus HFO (Micerium), Opallis (FGM), and Ceram X Duo (Dentsply DeTrey). For each trial, one group of specimens of each material was fabricated under ambient laboratory conditions, whereas in the other groups, the composites were cured after 1, 10, 20, 30, or 40 preheating cycles to a temperature of 39°C in a preheating device. Ten rectangular prismatic specimens (25 × 2 × 2 mm) were prepared for each group (N=180; n=10) and subjected to a three-point bending test for flexural strength and flexural modulus evaluation. Vickers microhardness was assessed on 10 cylindrical specimens from each group (N=180; n=10). Statistical analysis showed that, regardless of the material, the number of heating cycles was not a significant factor and was unable to influence the three mechanical properties tested. However, a significant main effect of the employed material on the marginal means of the three dependent variables was detected.

Evaluation of the influence of three different temperatures on microleakage of two self-etch and one total-etch adhesives

AIM

To evaluate the bonding temperature effect on dentin-restoration microleakage. The null hypothesis of the study is that the score of microleakage is identical among different adhesive bondings at different temperatures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ninety caries free maxillary premolars were selected. Class V cavities were prepared on the cemento enamel junction (CEJ) of the buccal sides with enamel margins on occlusal sides and cementum margins on gingival sides. The specimens were divided into 3 groups: G1, single bond adhesive + Z250 composite; G2, P90 adhesive + Filtek Silorane composite; and G3, Clearfil SE bond + Clearfil APX. All groups were divided into three subgroups based on the adhesive temperature: A-4°C; B-25°C; and C-40°C. After coating the specimens with nail polish 1 mm beyond the margin of the restorations, they were stored in 0.5% basic Fuchsin dye solution for 24 hours. The teeth then were buccolingually sectioned and observed under a stereomicroscope.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between microleakage of occlusal and gingival margins in each group. Clearfil SE bond and Adper single bond displayed lower microleakage than P90 adhesive at 4°C and 25°C. The most and least microleakage score for Adper single bond was at 40°C and 25°C respectively. Clearfil SE bond showed less microleakage at 25°C than 4°C and 40°C.

CONCLUSION

Clearfil SE bond and Adper single bond displayed less microleakage at 25°C while there was no significant difference among for P90 adhesive microleakage at three temperatures.

Effect of 457 nm diode-pumped solid state laser on the polymerization composite resins: microhardness, cross-link density, and polymerization shrinkage

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the present study was to test the usefulness of 457 nm diode-pumped solid state (DPSS) laser as a light source to cure composite resins.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Five different composite resins were light cured using three different light-curing units (LCUs): a DPSS 457 nm laser (LAS), a light-emitting diode (LED), and quartz-tungsten-halogen (QTH) units. The light intensity of LAS was 560 mW/cm(2), whereas LED and QTH LCUs was ∼900 mW/cm(2). The degree of polymerization was tested by evaluating microhardness, cross-link density, and polymerization shrinkage.

RESULTS

Before water immersion, the microhardness of laser-treated specimens ranged from 40.8 to 84.7 HV and from 31.7 to 79.0 HV on the top and bottom surfaces, respectively, and these values were 3.3-23.2% and 2.9-31.1% lower than the highest microhardness obtained using LED or QTH LCUs. Also, laser-treated specimens had lower top and bottom microhardnesses than the other LCUs treated specimens by 2.4-19.4% and 1.4-27.8%, respectively. After ethanol immersion for 24 h, the microhardness of laser-treated specimens ranged from 20.3 to 63.2 HV on top and bottom surfaces, but from 24.9 to 71.5 HV when specimens were cured using the other LCUs. Polymerization shrinkage was 9.8-14.7 μm for laser-treated specimens, and these were significantly similar or lower (10.2-16.0 μm) than those obtained using the other LCUs.

CONCLUSIONS

The results may suggest that the 457 nm DPSS laser can be used as a light source for light-curing dental resin composites.