Surface Sealant Effect on the Color Stability of a Composite Resin Following Ultraviolet Light Artificial Aging.

OBJECTIVE: To examine how exposure to accelerated artificial aging (AAA) stimuli (ultraviolet [UV] light) affects the color stability of a composite resin following surface sealant (SS) application. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 30 cylindrical composite resin (Esthet-X) discs were prepared using Teflon-coated rings. The treatment groups, defined by different SS (Seal-N-Sine, PermaSeal, OptiGuard, Biscover LV, and DuraFinish) use, were divided into five groups of six discs each. The discs were subjected to baseline color measurements followed by measurements after surface sealant application (specular included component [SCI] and specular excluded component [SCE]) using a spectrophotometer. Three measurements (SCI and SCE) were performed for a total of 18 readings (test surface) per specimen group. All specimens were then exposed to a UV light source for a total of 382 hours. Color readings of the specimens were again recorded for each group. Quantitative color measurements were executed using Commission Internationale de l'Eclairage L*a*b* calculations. RESULTS: Baseline color measurements of the composite resin discs, following the AAA exposure protocol, revealed no significant differences. A comparison of the composite resin discs before and after SS application (without UV light exposure) showed statistically significant differences using both SCI and SCE measurement criteria. Although significant differences were encountered between the ΔL*, Δa*, Δb*, and ΔE parameters, all specimens (groups) were within the clinically acceptable range (1.0<ΔE≤ 3.3). Again, statistically significant differences were noted (ΔL*, Δa*, Δb*, and ΔE parameters) for all specimen groups receiving SS application, utilizing both SCI and SCE measurements, following exposure to UV light. All groups were within the clinically acceptable range (1.0<ΔE≤ 3.3), except the Durafinish group. The Durafinish SS group experienced significantly greater (p<0.001) overall color change (SCI and SCE) following UV light exposure. An intergroup comparison following UV exposure revealed that the Permaseal, OptiGuard, and Seal-n-Shine SS groups displayed the least amount of color change statistically but not necessarily always perceptibly significant, while the Durafinish group exhibited the greatest color change statistically and perceptibly. CONCLUSIONS: The color stability of a composite resin, including the addition of most SSs, was not affected perceptibly by UV light exposure.

Microleakage of Class I and II Composite Resin Restorations Using a Sonic-resin Placement System.

OBJECTIVES: To determine microleakage of posterior Class I and II restorations using the SonicFill composite resin system. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eighty previously extracted third molars were randomly assigned to four preparation/restoration groups (n=20): Group A: Class I preparations restored with SonicFill system/bulk fill; Group B: Class II preparations restored with SonicFill system/bulk fill; Group C: Class I preparations restored with Herculite Ultra composite resin/incremental technique; and Group D: Class II preparations restored with Herculite Ultra composite resin/incremental technique. Class I preparations were approximately 3.0 mm in width buccolingually and 3.0 mm in depth. Class II preparations were approximately 3.0 mm in width buccolingually, 1.5 mm in axial depth, and 4.0 mm in gingival depth. In all groups, the enamel and dentin surfaces were conditioned with Kerr 37.5% phosphoric acid, followed by application of Optibond Solo Plus adhesive system. Following restoration, the specimens were thermocycled, immersed in methylene blue dye, and embedded in acrylic resin. Specimen blocks were sectioned in the mesiodistal direction, with marginal dye penetration (microleakage) examined using a 20× binocular microscope. Class I and II restoration microleakage was scored separately using a 0-3 ordinal ranking system. Statistical analyses were conducted using nonparametric testing at the p < 0.05 level of significance. RESULTS: Significantly less microleakage was associated with both Class I restorative groups (A and C), SonicFill bulk fill and Herculite Ultra incremental fill, compared to the Class II restorative groups (B and D), SonicFill/bulk fill and Herculite Ultra/incremental fill. CONCLUSIONS: According to the results of this study, the materials (SonicFill vs Herculite Ultra), C-factors, and insertion techniques (bulk vs incremental) did not appear to be significant influences with regard to marginal microleakage; however, the type of preparation cavity (Class I vs Class II) and the subsequent bonding surface (enamel vs dentin [cementum]) proved to be significant factors.