Impacto de la luz operatoria sobre las resinas compuestas: evaluación de su contracción / The impact of operative light on composite resins: evaluation of their shrinkage

El objetivo de este estudio fue analizar el comportamiento, contracción volumétrica, de diferentes resinas compuestas de fotopolimerización, expuestas a variadas condiciones de incidencia lumínica. Se tomaron volúmenes estandarizados de 7 resinas compuestas (microhíbridas y nanohíbridas y nanoparticulados) que se colocaron sobre una línea de referencia en portaobjetos, cubriéndose luego con otro y aplicando una fuerza previamente establecida. Se midió luego con un calibre electrónico la variaciones en el diámetro de la muestra bajo tres situaciones diferentes: luz ambiente (natural), luz foco (halógena), luz artificial (tubos fluorescentes) y sus combinaciones. Resultados: Se observó la mayor variación porcentual al exponer a las muestras simultáneamente a la luz ambiente, artificial y operatoria, siendo los valores más altos de reducción para las resinas compuestas Brilliant NG Coltene (Dentina) y Miris 2 Coltene (Dentina) con -2.52% y -2.7% respectivamente. Conclusión: existieron modificaciones en el volumen de todos los materiales expuestos a las diferentes condiciones de luz y tiempo de exposición. Comparando los resultados con el estudio previo (2007) se pude inferir que los materiales usados en el presente estudio resultaron más fotosensibles, dado que a similar exposición, aumentaron y/redujeron su tamaño en mayor medida (AU)

Effect of immersion into solutions at various pH on the color stability of composite resins with different shades

OBJECTIVES: This study examined the color changes of a resin composite with different shades upon exposure to water with different pH. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nanohybrid resin composites (Filtek Z350XT, 3M ESPE) with four different shades (A2, A3, B1, and B2) were immersed in water with three different pH (pH 3, 6, and 9) for 14 day. The CIE L*a*b* color coordinates of the specimens were evaluated before and after immersion in the solutions. The color difference (DeltaE*) and the translucency parameter (TP) were calculated using the color coordinates. RESULTS: DeltaE* ranged from 0.33 to 1.58, and the values were affected significantly by the pH. The specimens immersed in a pH 6 solution showed the highest DeltaE* values (0.87 - 1.58). The specimens with a B1 shade showed the lowest DeltaE* change compared to the other shades. TP ranged from 7.01 to 9.46 depending on the pH and resin shade. The TP difference between before and after immersion in the pH solutions was less than 1.0. CONCLUSIONS: The resulting change of color of the tested specimens did not appear to be clinically problematic because the color difference was < 1.6 in the acidic, neutral, and alkaline solutions regardless of the resin shade, i.e., the color change was imperceptible.

Colorimetric comparison of single layered dental composite with double layered dental composite

OBJECTIVES: This study analyzed the difference in color caused by different thickness in enamel layer of composite resins when applied with single and layering placement technique, and evaluated if the results agreed with the shade guide from the manufacturers to verify reliability of the color matching process of the manufacturers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For single composite resin samples, 6 mm diameter and 4 mm thickness cylindrical samples were fabricated using Ceram-X mono (DENTSPLY DeTrey) and CIE L*a*b* values were measured with spectrophotometer. Same process was done for layering composite resin samples, making 3 dentinal shade samples, 4 mm thickness, for each shade using Ceram-X duo (DENTSPLY DeTrey) and enamel shade resins were layered in 2 mm thickness and CIE L*a*b* values were measured. These samples were ground to 0.2 mm thickness each time, and CIE L*a*b* values were measured to 1 mm thickness of enamel shade resin. RESULTS: Color difference (DeltaE*) between single and layering composite resin was 1.37 minimum and 10.53 maximum when layering thicknesses were between 1 mm and 2 mm and 6 out of 10 same shade groups suggested by manufacturer showed remarkable color difference at any thickness (DeltaE* > 3.3). CONCLUSION: When using Ceram-X mono and duo for composite resin restoration, following the manufacturer's instructions for choosing the shade is not appropriate, and more accurate information for Ceram-X duo is needed on the variation and expression of the shades depending on the thickness of the enamel.