ABSTRACT
Abstract Color match and water sorption are two factors that affect restorative materials. Discoloration is essential in the lifespan of restorations. The aim of this study was to evaluate color change and water sorption of nine flowable composites at multiple time points over 6 months. 60 samples of each composite were divided into two groups (Color Change and Water Sorption/Solubility). Each Color Change group was divided into six subgroups, which were immersed in distilled water (DW), coffee (CF), Coca-Cola (CC), red wine (RW), tea (TE) and orange juice (OJ). The color was measured at the baseline, 1, 2, 3 and 4 weeks, and 3 and 6 months and color change values (ΔE) were calculated. Each Water Sorption [WS]/Solubility [WL] group was tested according to ISO 4049:2009. The data were evaluated using two-way ANOVA, Fisher's post-hoc test and Pearson's correlation test. The composite with the lowest ΔE differed for each solution: Filtek™ Bulk Fill in DW (∆E = 0.73 (0.17-1.759)); Vertise Flow in CF (∆E = 14.75 (7.91-27.41)), in TE (∆E = 7.27 (2.81-24.81)) and OJ (∆E = 3.17 (0.87-9.92)); Tetric EvoFlow® in CC (∆E = 1.27 (0.45-4.02)); and Filtek™ Supreme XTE in RW (∆E = 8.88 (5.23-19.59)). RW caused the most discoloration (∆E = 23.62 (4.93-51.36)). Vertise Flow showed the highest water sorption (WS = 69.10 ± 7.19). The Pearson test showed statistically significant positive correlations between water sorption and solubility and between water sorption and ∆E; the positive solubility-∆E correlation was not statistically significant. The findings suggest that water sorption is one factor associated with the ability of composites to discolor; however, discoloration is a multifactorial problem.
Subject(s)
Water/chemistry , Prosthesis Coloring , Composite Resins/chemistry , Reference Values , Solubility , Surface Properties , Time Factors , Beverages , Materials Testing , Reproducibility of Results , Analysis of Variance , Color , Colorimetry , Statistics, Nonparametric , ImmersionABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the performance of different adhesive systems in fiber post placement aiming to clarify the influence of different hydrophobic experimental blend adhesives, and of one commercially available adhesive on the frictional retention during a luting procedure. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One luting agent (70 Wt% BisGMA, 28.5% TEGDMA; 1.5% p-tolyldiethanolamine) to cement fiber posts into root canals was applied with 4 different adhesive combinations: Group 1: The etched roots were rinsed with water for 30 s to remove the phosphoric acid, then rinsed with 99.6% ethanol for 30 s, and blotdried. A trial adhesive (base to catalyst on a 1:1 ratio) was used with an experimental luting agent (35% Bis-GMA, 14.37% TeGDMA, 0.5% eDMAB, 0.13% CQ); Group 2: A trial adhesive (base to catalyst on a 1:2 ratio) was luted as in Group 1; Group 3: One-Step Plus (OSP, Bisco Inc.) following the ethanol bonding technique in combination with the luting agent as in Group 1; Group 4: OSP strictly following the manufacturer's instructions using the luting agent as in Group 1. The groups were challenged with push-out tests. Posted root slices were loaded until post segment extrusion in the apical-coronal direction. Failure modes were analyzed under scanning electron microscopy. RESULTS: Push-out strength was not significantly influenced by the luting agent (p>0.05). No statistically significant differences among the tested groups were found as Group 1 (exp 1 - ethanol-wet bonding technique)=Group 2 (exp 2 - ethanol-wet bonding technique)=Group 3 (OSP - ethanol-wet bonding technique)=Group 4 (control, OSP - water-wet bonding technique) (p>0.05). The dominating failure modes in all the groups were cohesive/adhesive failures, which were predominantly observed on the post/luting agent interface. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study support the hypothesis that the proposal to replace water with ethanol to bond fiber posts to the root canal using highly hydrophobic resin is plausible, but this seems to be more the proof of a concept than a clinically applicable procedure.
Subject(s)
Humans , Dental Bonding/methods , Dental Pulp Cavity/chemistry , Dentin-Bonding Agents/chemistry , Microscopy, Electron, Scanning , Post and Core Technique , Dental Restoration Failure , Dental Pulp Cavity/drug effects , Dentin/chemistry , Dentin/drug effects , Hydrophobic and Hydrophilic Interactions , Materials Testing , Random Allocation , Statistics, Nonparametric , Surface PropertiesABSTRACT
O objetivo do presente estudo foi avaliar, por teste de microtração, a resitência de união do adesivo com "primer" autocondicionante Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray Medical Inc.) ao substrato (esmalte ou dentina); e verificar, através de MEV, a integridade da interface entre adesivo e substrato antes do teste de microtração. Quatorze molares humanos hígidos foram aleatoriamente divididos em dois grupos (n=7) de acordo com o substrato a ser usado: dentina ou esmalte. Após a aplicação do sistema adesivo, um bloco de resina composta (Tetric Ceran - Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) de aproximadamente 5 x 5 x 5 mm foi construído sobre o dente, sendo cada incremento fotoativado por 40 segundos com 60mW/cm² (Optilux 401 - Demetron Research Corporation). Após 24 horas, os blocos dente/adesivo/resina foram seccionados, obtendo-se corpos de prova em forma de palito, com área de união de aproximadamente 0,8mm². Foram obtidos 156 corpos-de-prova, sendo que 120 palitos foram usados para o teste de microtração e 36 foram preparados para análise em microscopia eletrônica de varredura. A média de resistência de união (MPa) em dentina foi de 44,5 (+/-7,7) e em esmalte, 38,9 (+/-4,8), sendo estatisticamente semelhantes entre si. A análise em MEV mostrou presença de bolhas e/ou microtrincas na interface adesiva e no substrato, principalmente em esmalte