 |
Publisher: Peytchinski, Gospodin Iliev
ISSN: 1312 773X (Online)
Issue: 2016, vol. 22, issue 2
Subject Area: Dental Medicine
Pages: 1114-1119
DOI: 10.5272/jimab.2016222.1114
Published online: 19 April 2016
J of IMAB 2016 Apr-Jun;22(2):1114-1119
SORPTION AND SOLUBILITY OF LOW-SHRINKAGE RESIN-BASED DENTAL COMPOSITES
Sevda Yantcheva 
, Radosveta Vasileva.
Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Medical University Sofia, Bulgaria.
ABSTRACT:
Background: Resin-based composites are well-established restorative materials. However, these materials may absorb significant amounts of water when exposed to aqueous environments. Sorption and solubility are affecting composite restorations by two different mechanisms; the first is the up taking of water producing an increased weight and the second is the dissolution of materials in water, leading to a weight reduction of the final conditioned samples.
Objective: To measure the water sorption and solubility of different low-shrinkage resin-based composites. Six materials were selected: Filtek P60, Filtek Ultimate, SonicFill, Filtek Silorane, Kalore and Venus Diamond.
Materials and methods: Five disc specimens were prepared of each material and polymerized with diode light-curing unit. Water sorption and solubility of the different materials were were calculated by means of weighting the samples before and after water immersion and desiccation.
Data were statistically analyzed using Shapiro-Wilk One Way Analysis of Variance followed by the Holm-Sidak comparison test .
Results: There were significant differences (p<=0.001) between materials regarding sorption and solubility.
Regarding sorption F. Silorane showed lowest values, followed by SonicFill, without significant difference between them. Statistical significant differences exist between F. Silorane and F.P60, F. Ultimate, Kalore. Significant differences exist between SonicFill and F. Ultimate.
F.Silorane (-0.018) and Kalore (-0.010) showed lowest values of solubility but there were marginal difference among all composites investigated.
Conclusions: 1.The material with lowest values of sorption and solubility was F.Silorane. 2. The attained sorption and solubility values for composites are influenced by the differences in resin matrix composition and filler contend. 3. Modifications of dimethacrylate matrix did not minimize significantly sorption and solubility of composites. 4. Besides water sorption resin composites are stabile structures: solubility is lower then sorption.
Key words: resin composites, sorption, solubility, silorane, matrix-modified composites, bulk fill composites,
- Download FULL TEXT /PDF 818 KB/
Please cite this article in PubMed Style or AMA (American Medical Association) Style:
Yantcheva S, Vasileva R. Sorption and solubility of low-shrinkage resin-based dental composites. J of IMAB. 2016 Apr-Jun;22(2):1114-1119. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5272/jimab.2016222.1114.
Correspondence to: Sevda Yantcheva, Department Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Medical University, Sofia; 1, St. George Sofijski Str., 1431 Sofia, Bulgaria; E-mail: sevda.yancheva@gmail.com
REFERENCES:
1. Santerre JP, Shajii L, Leung BW. Relation of dental composite formulations to their degradation and the release of hydrolyzed polymeric-resin-derived products. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 2001; 12(2):136-151. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
2. Van Landuyt KL, Nawrot T, Geebelen B, De Munck J, Snauwaert J, Yoshihara K, et al. How much do resin-based dental materials release? A meta-analytical approach. Dental Mater, 2011 Aug;27(8):723-747. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
3. Ortengren U, Wellendorf H, Karlson S, Ruyter IE. Water sorption and solubility of dental composites and identification of monomers released in aqueous environment. J Oral Rehabil. 2001 Dec;28(12):1106-1115. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
4. Drummond JL. Degradation, fatigue and failure of resin dental composite materials. J Dent Res, 2008 Aug; 87(8):710-719. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
5. Vouvoudi EC, Sideridou ID. Dental light-cured polymer nanocomposites: A brief review of experimental results obtained from the study of some physicochemical properties, J of Composites and Biodegradable Polymers. 2014; 2:46-56.
6. Nayif MM, Suliman A-HA, Nikaido T, Ikeda M, Foxton RM, Tagami J. Long-term water sorption of three resin-based restorative materials, Int Chin J Dent, 2005; 5(1):1-6.
7. Illie N. Hickel R. Resin composite restorative materials. Aust Dent J.2011 Jun;56(Suppl 1):59-66. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
8. Boaro LC, Goncalves F, Guimaraes TC, Ferracane JL, Versluis A, Braga RR. Polymerization stress, shrinkage and elastic modulus of current low-shrinkage restorative composites. Dent Mater. 2010 Dec;26(12):1144-1150. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
9. Fonseca AS, Gerhardt KM, Pereira GD, Sinhoreti MA, Schneider LF. Do new matrix formulations improve resin composite resistance to degradation processes? Braz Oral Res, 2013 Sep-Oct;27(5):410-416. [PubMed]
10. Weinmann W, Thalacker C, Guggenberg R. Siloranes in dental composites. Dent Mater. 2005 Jan;21(1):68-74. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
11. Acpata ES, Alomari QD, AlShammery AR. Principles and practice of operative dentistry. A modern approach. Quintessence Pub Co. 1st edition. 2013 Aug 5; p.264
12. Braga RR, Yamamoto T, Tyler K, Boaro L, Ferracane JL, Swain MV. A comparative study between crack analysis and a mechanical test for assessing polymerization stress of restorative composites. Dent Mater. 2012 Jun; 28(6):632-64. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
13. Terry DA, Leinfelder KF, Blatz MB. A comparison of advanced resin monomer technologies. Dent Today. 2009 Jul;28(7):122-3. [PubMed]
14. Bagis YH, Baltacioglu IH, Kahyaoglullati S. Comparing microleakage and the layering methods of Silorane-based resin composite in wide class 2 MOD cavities. Oper Dent. 2009 Sep-Oct;34(5):578-585. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
15. Duarte S Jr, Botta AC, Phark JH, Sadan A. Selected mechanical and physical properties and clinical application of a new low-shrinkage composite restoration. Quintessence Int. 2009 Sep;40(8):631-638. [PubMed]
16. Tiba A, Zeller GG, Estrich C, Hong A. A laboratory evaluation of bulk-fill versus traditional multi- increment-fill resin-based composites. J Am Dent Assoc. 2013; 144(10):1182-3. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
17. Ferracane JL Elution of leachable components from composites, J Oral Rehabil. 1994 Jul;21(4):441-452. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
18. Toledano M, Osorio R, Osorio E, Fuentes V, Parti C, Garcia-Godoy F. Sorption and solubility of resin-based restorative dental materials. J Dent. 2003 Jan;31(1):43-50. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
19. Razooki Al-Shekhli AA, Al Abui I. Solubility of nanofilled versus conventional composites. Pakistan Oral&Dental Journal. 2014 Mar;34(1):118-121.
20. Al Qahtani MQ, Binsufayyan SS, Al Shabani HA, Amri HG. Effect of immersion media on sorption and solubility of different tooth-colored restoratives. Pakistan Oral&Dental Journal. 2012 Aug;32(2):304-310.
21. Durner J, Obermaier J, Draenert M, Ilie N. Correlation of degree of conversion with the amount of elutable substances in nano-hybrid dental composites. Dent Mater. 2012 Nov;28(11):1146-1153. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
22. Almeida GS, Poskus LT, Guimaraes JG, da Silva EM. The effect of mouth rinses on salivary sorption, solubility and surface degradation of a nanofilled and hybrid resin composite. Oper Dent. 2010 Jan-Feb;35(1):105-111. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
23. Schmidt C, Illie N. The effect of aging on the mechanical properties of nanohybrid composites based on new monomer formulations. Clin Oral Invest, 2013 Jan;17(1):251-257. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
Received: 02 February 2016
Published online: 19 April 2016