Comparative Evaluation of Water Absorption, Solubility, Degree of Conversion, and Color Stability in Ormocer-Based and Flowable Bulk-Fill Composites

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 3 Sayı: 3, 409 - 420, 27.12.2024

Betül Kübra Kurucu Karadeniz , Büşra Özdemir , Seyit Bilal Özdemir

https://doi.org/10.58711/turkishjdentres.vi.1555054

Öz

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the water absorption, solubility, degree of conversion, and color stability of flowable bulk-fill composites and ormocer-based resin.

Materials and Methods: Five flowable bulk-fill composites (SDR, Beautifil Bulk, Omnichroma Flow Bulk, Venus Bulk Fill, Charisma Bulk Flow One) and two composites (Filtek Z250, Admira Fusion 5) were tested (n=40). Color and mass measurements were taken initially, after 24 hours, and after 28 days. Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS V23 and the R program with the WRS2 package. Non-normally
distributed data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis H test and Dunn test for post-hoc comparisons, while robust ANOVA with Bonferroni correction was used for group and time comparisons. The significance level was set at p < 0.050.

Results: Charisma Bulk Flow had the highest solubility, Admira Fusion 5 the lowest (p=0.02). Degree of conversion and color stability showed significant differences (p<0.001).

Conclusion: The tested composite materials showed significant differences in water absorption, solubility, degree of conversion, and color stability, influenced by their monomer composition and filler content. Admira Fusion 5 exhibited the lowest water absorption and solubility alongside the highest degree of conversion, indicating its potential for superior clinical performance. In contrast, SDR and Venus
Bulk Fill demonstrated the highest color changes over time, underscoring the importance of material selection for aesthetic restorations. These findings highlight the critical role of material composition in determining the physical and optical properties of dental composites.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Ormocer Composites, Bulk-Fill Composites, Water Sorption, Solubility, Degree of Conversion, Color Stability

Ormocer Bazlı ve Akışkan Bulk-Fill Kompozitlerde Su Emilimi, Çözünürlük, Dönüşüm Derecesi ve Renk Stabilitesinin Karşılaştırmalı Değerlendirmesi

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışma, akışkan bulk-fill kompozitler ve ormocer bazlı reçinenin su emilimi, çözünürlüğü, dönüşüm derecesi ve renk stabilitesini değerlendirmeyi amaçlamaktadır.

Materyal ve Yöntem: Beş bulk-fill kompozit (SDR, Beautifil Bulk, Omnichroma Flow Bulk, Venus Bulk Fill, Charisma Bulk Flow One) ve iki kompozit (Filtek Z250, Admira Fusion 5) test edildi (n=40). Renk ve kütle ölçümleri başlangıçta, 24 saat sonra ve 28 gün sonra yapıldı. İstatistiksel analizler IBM SPSS V23 ve WRS2 paketiyle R programı kullanılarak gerçekleştirildi. Non-normal dağılımlı veriler Kruskal-Wallis
H testi ve Dunn testi kullanılarak post-hoc karşılaştırmalar için analiz edildi. Grup ve zaman karşılaştırmaları için Robust ANOVA ile Benforrini düzeltme kullanıldı. Anlamlılık düzeyi p
< 0,050 olarak belirlendi.

Bulgular: Charisma Bulk Flow en yüksek çözünürlüğe sahipken, Admira Fusion 5 en düşük çözünürlüğe sahipti (p=0.02). Dönüşüm derecesi ve renk stabilitesi arasında anlamlı farklılıklar bulunmuştur (p<0.001).

Sonuç: Test edilen kompozit malzemeler, monomer bileşimleri ve dolgu içeriklerinden kaynaklanan su emilimi, çözünürlük, dönüşüm derecesi ve renk kararlılığı açısından önemli farklılıklar gösterdi. Admira Fusion 5, en yüksek dönüşüm derecesinin yanı sıra en düşük su emilimi ve çözünürlük ile üstün klinik performans potansiyeli olduğunu gösterdi. Buna karşılık, SDR ve Venus Bulk Fill, zaman içinde en yüksek renk değişimlerini göstererek, estetik restorasyonlarda malzeme seçiminin önemine işaret etti. Bu bulgular, kompozitlerin fiziksel ve optik özelliklerinin tayininde malzeme kompozisyonunun önemini vurgulamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Ormocer Kompozitler, Bulk-Fill Kompozitler, Su Emilimi, Çözünürlük, Dönüşüm Derecesi, Renk Stabilitesi

Etik Beyan

Çalışma etik kurul onayı gerektirmemektedir.

Kaynakça

• 1. El-Damanhoury H, Platt J. Polymerization shrinkage stress kinetics and related properties of bulk-fill resin composites. Oper Dent. 2014;39(4):374-82.
• 2. Eakle WS, Bastin KG. Dental materials: clinical applications for dental assistants and dental hygienists: 4th Ed, Elsevier; 2020.
• 3. Bagheri R, Burrow M, Tyas M. Influence of food-simulating solutions and surface finish on susceptibility to staining of aesthetic restorative materials. J Dent. 2005;33(5):389-98.
• 4. Um CM, Ruyter I. Staining of resin-based veneering materials with coffee and tea. Quintessence Int. 1991;22(5).
• 5. Lundin S-Å, Noren JG. Marginal leakage in occlusally loaded, etched, class-II composite resin restorations. Acta Odontol Scand. 1991;49(4):247-54.
• 6. Kalachandra S, Wilson T. Water sorption and mechanical properties of light-cured proprietary composite tooth restorative materials. Biomaterials. 1992;13(2):105-9.
• 7. Yap A, Lee C. Water sorption and solubility of resin‐modified polyalkenoate cements. J Oral Rehabil. 1997;24(4):310-4.
• 8. Yoon TH, Lee YK, Lim BS, Kim CW. Degree of polymerization of resin composites by different light sources. J Oral Rehabil. 2002;29(12):1165-73.
• 9. Poskus LT, Placido E, Cardoso PEC. Influence of placement techniques on Vickers and Knoop hardness of class II composite resin restorations. Dent Mater. 2004;20(8):726- 32.
• 10. Sigusch BW, Pflaum T, Völpel A, Gretsch K, Hoy S, Watts DC, et al. Resin-composite cytotoxicity varies with shade and irradiance. Dent Mater. 2012;28(3):312-9.
• 11. Miletic V, Santini A. Optimizing the concentration of 2, 4, 6-trimethylbenzoyldiphenylphosphine oxide initiator in composite resins in relation to monomer conversion. Dent Mater J. 2012;31(5):717-23.
• 12. Tarle, Meniga, Ristic, Sutalo, Pichler. The effect of the photopolymerization method on the quality of composite resin samples. J Oral Rehabil. 1998;25(6):436-42.
• 13. Uctasli S, Tezvergil A, Lassila L, Vallittu P. The degree of conversion of fiber-reinforced composites polymerized using different light-curing sources. Dent Mater. 2005;21(5):469-75.
• 14. Organization IS. ISO 4049: Dentistry-resin based flling materials. The Organization Geneva; 1988.
• 15. Paravina RD, Ghinea R, Herrera LJ, Bona AD, Igiel C, Linninger M, et al. Color difference thresholds in dentistry. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2015;27:S1-S9.
• 16. Stansbury J, Dickens SH. Determination of double bond conversion in dental resins by near infrared spectroscopy. Dent Mater. 2001;17(1):71-9.
• 17. Baroudi K, Saleh AM, Silikas N, Watts DC. Shrinkage behaviour of flowable resin-composites related to conversion and filler-fraction. J Dent. 2007;35(8):651-5.
• 18. Monsarrat P, Garnier S, Vergnes J-N, Nasr K, Grosgogeat B, Joniot S. Survival of directly placed ormocer-based restorative materials: A systematic review and metaanalysis of clinical trials. Dent Mater. 2017;33(5):e212-e20.
• 19. Torres C, Augusto M, Mathias-Santamaria I, Di Nicoló R, Borges A. Pure ormocer vs methacrylate composites on posterior teeth: a double-blinded randomized clinical trial. Oper Dent. 2020;45(4):359-67.
• 20. Yu P, Yap A, Wang X. Degree of conversion and polymerization shrinkage of bulk-fill resin-based composites. Oper Dent. 2017;42(1):82-9.
• 21. Borges AFS, Chase MA, Guggiari AL, Gonzalez MJ, de Souza Ribeiro AR, Pascon FM, et al. A critical review on the conversion degree of resin monomers by direct analyses. Braz Dent Sci. 2013;16(1):18-26.
• 22. Faria-e-Silva AL, Fanger C, Nguyen L, Howerton D, Pfeifer CS. Impact of material shade and distance from light curing unit tip on the depth of polymerization of composites. Braz Dent J. 2017;28:632-7.
• 23. Koupis NS, Vercruysse CW, Marks LA, Martens LC, Verbeeck RM. Curing depth of (polyacid-modified) composite resins determined by scraping and a penetrometer. Dent Mater. 2004;20(10):908-14.
• 24. Heintze SD, Zimmerli B. Relevance of in vitro tests of adhesive and composite dental materials, a review in 3 parts. Part 1: Approval requirements and standardized testing of composite materials according to ISO specifications. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed. 2011;121(9):804-16.
• 25. Giannini M, Di Francescantonio M, Pacheco RR, Boaro LC, Braga RR. Characterization of water sorption, solubility, and roughness of silorane-and methacrylatebased composite resins. Oper Dent. 2014;39(3):264-72.
• 26. Curtis A, Shortall A, Marquis P, Palin W. Water uptake and strength characteristics of a nanofilled resin-based composite. J Dent. 2008;36(3):186-93.
• 27. Øysæd H, Ruyter I. Water sorption and filler characteristics of composites for use in posterior teeth. J Dent Res. 1986;65(11):1315-8.
• 28. Sideridou ID, Karabela MM, Vouvoudi EC. Volumetric dimensional changes of dental light-cured dimethacrylate resins after sorption of water or ethanol. Dent Mater. 2008;24(8):1131-6.
• 29. Yap AU, Tan C, Chung S. Wear behavior of new composite restoratives. Oper Dent. 2004;29:269-74.
• 30. 30. Toledano M, Osorio R, Osorio E, Fuentes V, Prati C, Garcıa-Godoy F. Sorption and solubility of resin-based restorative dental materials. J Dent. 2003;31(1):43-50.
• 31. Mirsasaani SS, Ghomi F, Hemati M, Tavasoli T. Measurement of solubility and water sorption of dental nanocomposites light cured by argon laser. IEEE Trans Nanobiosci. 2013;12(1):41-6.
• 32. Wei Y-j, Silikas N, Zhang Z-t, Watts DC. Diffusion and concurrent solubility of self-adhering and new resin–matrix composites during water sorption/desorption cycles. Dent Mater. 2011;27(2):197-205.
• 33. Chaves LP, Graciano FMO, Júnior OB, do Vale Pedreira APR, Manso AP, Wang L. Water interaction with dental luting cements by means of sorption and solubility. Braz Dent Sci. 2012;15(4):29-35.
• 34. Pearson G, Longman C. Water sorption and solubility of resin‐based materials following inadequate polymerization by a visible‐light curing system. J Oral Rehabil. 1989;16(1):57-61.
• 35. Venz S, Dickens B. NIR‐spectroscopic investigation of water sorption characteristics of dental resins and composites. J Biomed Mater Res. 1991;25(10):1231-48.
• 36. Gönülol N, Şen Tunç E, Ozer S, Yıldızlı K. Evaluation of water sorption-solubility and surface roughness of different bulk fill composite resins. Meandros Med Dent J. 2019;20(1).
• 37. Yap AU. Resin-modified glass ionomer cements: a comparison of water sorption characteristics. Biomaterials. 1996;17(19):1897-900.
• 38. Cefaly DFG, Franco EB, Mondelli RFL, Francisconi PAS, Navarro MFdL. Diametral tensile strength and water sorption of glass-ionomer cements used in Atraumatic Restorative Treatment. J Appl Oral Sci. 2003;11:96-101.
• 39. Salas M, Lucena C, Herrera LJ, Yebra A, Della Bona A, Pérez MM. Translucency thresholds for dental materials. Dent Mater. 2018;34(8):1168-74.
• 40. Ghinea R, Pérez MM, Herrera LJ, Rivas MJ, Yebra A, Paravina RD. Color difference thresholds in dental ceramics. J Dent. 2010;38:e57-e64.
• 41. del Mar Perez M, Ghinea R, Herrera LJ, Ionescu AM, Pomares H, Pulgar R, et al. Dental ceramics: a CIEDE2000 acceptability thresholds for lightness, chroma and hue differences. J Dent. 2011;39:e37-e44.