Marc Vance1, Nathaniel C Lawson2, Manpreet Rupal3, Preston Beck2, John O Burgess2. 1. Birmingham, AL, USA. 2. Division of Biomaterials, Clinical and Community Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL, 35205, USA. 3. School of Public Health, University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL, 35294-0022, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The study aims to compare in vitro stain resistance, color stability, gloss, and gloss retention of a nano-filled resin-modified glass ionomers (RMGIs) to a traditional RMGI and resin-based composites (RBCs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Specimens (N = 20) were fabricated from a nano-filled RBC (Filtek Supreme Plus, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA), a nanohybrid RBC (Clearfil Majesty Esthetic, Kuraray; Tokyo, Japan), a nano-filled RMGI (Ketac Nano, 3M ESPE), and traditional RMGI (Fuji II LC, GC America, Chicago, IL, USA). L*a*b* values were recorded with a spectrophotometer, and gloss was measured with a glossmeter. For each material, 10 specimens were stored in distilled water in darkness for 1 week and 10 specimens were placed in a staining solution for 1 week. After storage, specimens were cleaned and L*a*b* and gloss measurements were remeasured. RESULTS: Data were analyzed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey analyses. Regarding color change, materials ranked: Ketac = Fuji > Filtek > Clearfil in water, and Ketac > Fuji > Filtek > Clearfil in staining solution. Prior to storage, the initial gloss of the materials ranked: Filtek ≥ Clearfil ≥ Ketac > Fuji. After storage, the materials ranked: Filtek = Clearfil > Ketac > Fuji in water, and Filtek > Clearfil > Ketac > Fuji in staining solution. Gloss retention was similar for all materials in water and gloss retention ranked: Filtek = Clearfil > Ketac = Fuji in staining solution. CONCLUSIONS: The nano-RMGI showed less stain resistance but higher gloss than the traditional RMGI. Both RMGIs had more color change, less stain resistance, lower gloss and less gloss retention than the RBCs. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The clinician should be aware that the use of a nano-RMGI may improve the gloss of an RMGI restoration; however, color change will likely occur, particularly if the patient consumes a staining diet.
OBJECTIVE: The study aims to compare in vitro stain resistance, color stability, gloss, and gloss retention of a nano-filled resin-modified glass ionomers (RMGIs) to a traditional RMGI and resin-based composites (RBCs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Specimens (N = 20) were fabricated from a nano-filled RBC (Filtek Supreme Plus, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA), a nanohybrid RBC (Clearfil Majesty Esthetic, Kuraray; Tokyo, Japan), a nano-filled RMGI (Ketac Nano, 3M ESPE), and traditional RMGI (Fuji II LC, GC America, Chicago, IL, USA). L*a*b* values were recorded with a spectrophotometer, and gloss was measured with a glossmeter. For each material, 10 specimens were stored in distilled water in darkness for 1 week and 10 specimens were placed in a staining solution for 1 week. After storage, specimens were cleaned and L*a*b* and gloss measurements were remeasured. RESULTS: Data were analyzed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey analyses. Regarding color change, materials ranked: Ketac = Fuji > Filtek > Clearfil in water, and Ketac > Fuji > Filtek > Clearfil in staining solution. Prior to storage, the initial gloss of the materials ranked: Filtek ≥ Clearfil ≥ Ketac > Fuji. After storage, the materials ranked: Filtek = Clearfil > Ketac > Fuji in water, and Filtek > Clearfil > Ketac > Fuji in staining solution. Gloss retention was similar for all materials in water and gloss retention ranked: Filtek = Clearfil > Ketac = Fuji in staining solution. CONCLUSIONS: The nano-RMGI showed less stain resistance but higher gloss than the traditional RMGI. Both RMGIs had more color change, less stain resistance, lower gloss and less gloss retention than the RBCs. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The clinician should be aware that the use of a nano-RMGI may improve the gloss of an RMGI restoration; however, color change will likely occur, particularly if the patient consumes a staining diet.
Authors: Dina Hamdy; Maria Giraki; Amr Abd Elaziz; Amira Badran; Gehan Allam; Stefan Ruettermann Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2021-07-09 Impact factor: 2.757