| Literature DB >> 36167560 |
Maha M Ebaya1, Ashraf I Ali1, Huda Abed El-Haliem1, Salah Hasab Mahmoud2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The blending ability of universal shade composites and their stability in the oral environment are of great concern in restoring anterior teeth. This study aims to evaluate and compare the color stability and surface roughness of two single-shade composite restorations, ormocer-based composite (OBC) and methacrylate resin-based composite (RBC), after storing them in different staining media.Entities:
Keywords: Color; Single-shade composite; Staining media; Surface roughness
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36167560 PMCID: PMC9513900 DOI: 10.1186/s12903-022-02423-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Oral Health ISSN: 1472-6831 Impact factor: 3.747
Materials evaluated in this study
| Material | Type | Composition | Batch number | Manufacturer | Application procedure |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Admira fusion X-tra | Nanohybrid ormocer based composite | Matrix: Resin ormocer Filler: Silicon oxide nano filler, glass ceramics filler (1 µm) Filler content: 84 (w/w) | 1604218 | VOCO GmbH, Cuxhaven, Germany | The restoration was applied at layers that are a maximum of 4 mm thick and adapted with a composite modeling instrument (CompoRoller,Kerr) and light-cured for 40 s |
| OMNICHROMA | Supra nano filled composite | 11, 6- Bis-methacryl ethyl oxycarbonyl amino, UDMA, TEGDMA, Mequniol, Di-butyl hydroxyl toluene and UV absorber Filler content: 79 (w/w) of spherical silica-zirconia filler mean particle size: 0.3 µm | 1602201 | Tokuyama Dental, Tokyo, Japan | Resin composite was applied incrementally that are a maximum of 2.5 mm thick and adapted with a suitable instruments. each increment was photopolymerized individually for 20 s |
| Futurabond M+ | Single bond universal LC | 2-HEMA (10–25%), Bis-GMA) (10–25%),ethanol (10–25%), acidic adhesive monomer(10 MDP) 2.5–5%),UDMA(2.5–5%),catalyst, pyrogenic silicic acids pH 2.3 | 1929068 | VOCO GmbH, Cuxhaven, Germany | One drop of the bond was put on a mixing palette, then the adhesive was applied evenly to the surfaces of the cavity and rubbed it in for 20 s with a disposable applicator, after that the adhesive layer was dried off with dry, oil-free air for at least 5 s in order to remove any solvents, then the adhesive layer was cured for 10 s |
| Palfique Universal Bond | Self-cured dental universal adhesive | Phosphoric acid monomer, Bis phenol A di (2-hydroxy propoxy) dimethacrylate), Bis-GMA, TEGDMA, 2-HEMA, (MTU-6). Silane coupling agent, peroxide, Borate catalyst, Acetone. Isopropanol and purified water | 040EZ8 | Tokuyama Dental, Tokyo, Japan | One drop of each bond bottle (A and B) was put on a mixing palette and mixed thoroughly with a disposable applicator, the application was completed within one minute since it had volatile solvents, after mixing the color had changed gradually, the application was completed within 3 min, then the adhesive was applied evenly to the surface then air dry for 30 s |
| Etchant Gel Vococid | 35% orthophosphoric acid | 7523 | VOCO GmbH, Cuxhaven, Germany | ||
| Etching Gel HV | 39 wt% phosphoric acid | 162E69 | Tokuyama Dental, Tokyo, Japan |
Fig. 1a Cavity preparation, b Cavity measurements, c: Color measurements; trapezoidal shape figure within the restoration with 4 apexes (a: cervical, b: mesial, c: incisal, d: distal) to represent all restoration colors, each one away 1 mm from restoration margin, while the other measuring points (a1, b1, c1, d1) located within tooth 1 mm away from the restoration margin.
Mean and standard deviation for the color stability of the two studied universal shade composites
| Ormocer-based composite | Methacrylate-based composite | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ΔE-baseline | ΔE-delayed | ΔE-baseline | ΔE-delayed | |
| Saliva | 2.22 ± .63 | 6.21 ± 1.85# | 1.80 ± .52 | 4.43 ± 2.11# |
| Tea | 2.14 ± .49 | 7.27 ± 2.73# | 2.28 ± 1.05 | 6.34 ± 1.60# |
| Cola | 2.42 ± .75 | 9.13 ± 1.37#a | 2.28 ± .68 | 6.83 ± 1.71*#a |
Data are expressed as the mean ± SD
SD standard deviation; P Probability significance when < 0.05
aSignificance between Saliva & Cola
*Significance between ΔE-ormocer-based composite vs ΔE-methacrylate-based composite either at baseline or delayed time (Test used: unpaired student’s t-test)
#Significance between ΔE-baseline versus ΔE-delayed either ormocer-based composite or methacrylate-based composite (Test used: paired student’s t-test)
Mean and standard deviation for the surface roughness of the two studied universal shade composites
| Ormocer-based composite | Methacrylate-based composite | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ra-baseline | Ra-delayed | Ra-baseline | Ra-delayed | |
| Saliva | 0.253 ± 0.0023 | 0.253 ± 0.0046 | 0.254 ± 0.0031 | 0.255 ± 0.0009 |
| Tea | 0.252 ± 0.0035 | 0.254 ± 0.002# | 0.255 ± 0.002 | 0.256 ± 0.0014 |
| Cola | 0.253 ± 0.003 | 0.257 ± 0.002#b | 0.256 ± 0.0019 | 0.258 ± 0.0017#bc |
Data are expressed as the mean ± SD
SD standard deviation; P Probability significance when < 0.05
aSignificance between Saliva & Tea
bSignificance between Saliva & Cola
cSignificance between Tea & Cola (Test used: one way ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey)
*Significance between Ra-baseline or Ra-delayed either for ormocer-based composite versus methacrylate-based composite either at baseline or delayed time. (Test used: unpaired student’s t-test)
#Significance between Ra-baseline and Ra-delayed either for ormocer-based composite or methacrylate-based composite (Test used: paired student’s t-test)
Fig. 2Surface topography of universal shade composites. a OBC immediately, a1, OBC after storage in saliva, a2. In tea, a3. In cola, b RBC immediately, b1. In saliva, b2. In tea, b3. In cola