File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105031
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-85192452701
- PMID: 38710315
- Find via
Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: The chemical and optical stability evaluation of injectable restorative materials under wet challenge
Title | The chemical and optical stability evaluation of injectable restorative materials under wet challenge |
---|---|
Authors | |
Keywords | Chemical stability Colour stability Composite material Injectable |
Issue Date | 2024 |
Citation | Journal of Dentistry, 2024, v. 146, article no. 105031 How to Cite? |
Abstract | Objectives: To investigate and compare the chemical and optical stability of four restorative composite materials: two injectable resins, one flowable resin and one compomer. Methods: Two injectable nano-filled composite resins: G-aenial Universal (GU) and Beautifil Injectable XSL (BI), a flowable composite resin: Filtek Supreme Flowable (FS) and a compomer: Dyract Flow (DF), in A2 shade were tested and compared. Water sorption and solubility were conducted according to ISO4049:2019 standard; ICP-OES and F-ion selective electrode were used to test the elemental release; Degree of conversion (DC) was obtained by using FTIR; water contact angle was obtained by static sessile drop method, and a spectrophotometer was used for optical properties (ΔE⁎, ΔL⁎ and TP). SPSS 28.0 was used for statistical analysis and the significant level was pre-set as α = 0.05. Results: GU performed the best in water sorption and solubility, FS had the lowest elemental release, the best colour stability, and the highest DCIM and DC24-h. DF, the compomer had the lowest, and GU and BI, the injectable composites had the largest water contact angle, respectively. Correlations were found between water sorption and water solubility. Conclusions: The four composite restorative materials showed different chemical and optical behaviours. Overall, composite resins performed better than compomer, while additional laboratory and in vivo tests are necessary to obtain a more comprehensive comparison between injectable and flowable composite resins. Wsp and Wsl are influenced by many common factors, and the values are highly positively related. Clinical Significance: A comprehensive understanding of materials is crucial before selecting materials for clinical practice. Composite resins rather than compomers are recommended because of their exceptional properties, which make them eligible for a wide range of clinical applications and an elongated lifespan. |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/345800 |
ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 4.8 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.313 |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Bai, Xuedong | - |
dc.contributor.author | Chen, Yanning | - |
dc.contributor.author | Zhou, Tianyu | - |
dc.contributor.author | Pow, Edmond Ho Nang | - |
dc.contributor.author | Tsoi, James Kit Hon | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2024-08-28T07:52:12Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2024-08-28T07:52:12Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2024 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Journal of Dentistry, 2024, v. 146, article no. 105031 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 0300-5712 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/345800 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Objectives: To investigate and compare the chemical and optical stability of four restorative composite materials: two injectable resins, one flowable resin and one compomer. Methods: Two injectable nano-filled composite resins: G-aenial Universal (GU) and Beautifil Injectable XSL (BI), a flowable composite resin: Filtek Supreme Flowable (FS) and a compomer: Dyract Flow (DF), in A2 shade were tested and compared. Water sorption and solubility were conducted according to ISO4049:2019 standard; ICP-OES and F-ion selective electrode were used to test the elemental release; Degree of conversion (DC) was obtained by using FTIR; water contact angle was obtained by static sessile drop method, and a spectrophotometer was used for optical properties (ΔE⁎, ΔL⁎ and TP). SPSS 28.0 was used for statistical analysis and the significant level was pre-set as α = 0.05. Results: GU performed the best in water sorption and solubility, FS had the lowest elemental release, the best colour stability, and the highest DCIM and DC24-h. DF, the compomer had the lowest, and GU and BI, the injectable composites had the largest water contact angle, respectively. Correlations were found between water sorption and water solubility. Conclusions: The four composite restorative materials showed different chemical and optical behaviours. Overall, composite resins performed better than compomer, while additional laboratory and in vivo tests are necessary to obtain a more comprehensive comparison between injectable and flowable composite resins. Wsp and Wsl are influenced by many common factors, and the values are highly positively related. Clinical Significance: A comprehensive understanding of materials is crucial before selecting materials for clinical practice. Composite resins rather than compomers are recommended because of their exceptional properties, which make them eligible for a wide range of clinical applications and an elongated lifespan. | - |
dc.language | eng | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | Journal of Dentistry | - |
dc.subject | Chemical stability | - |
dc.subject | Colour stability | - |
dc.subject | Composite material | - |
dc.subject | Injectable | - |
dc.title | The chemical and optical stability evaluation of injectable restorative materials under wet challenge | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.description.nature | link_to_subscribed_fulltext | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105031 | - |
dc.identifier.pmid | 38710315 | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-85192452701 | - |
dc.identifier.volume | 146 | - |
dc.identifier.spage | article no. 105031 | - |
dc.identifier.epage | article no. 105031 | - |