File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: The chemical and optical stability evaluation of injectable restorative materials under wet challenge

TitleThe chemical and optical stability evaluation of injectable restorative materials under wet challenge
Authors
KeywordsChemical stability
Colour stability
Composite material
Injectable
Issue Date2024
Citation
Journal of Dentistry, 2024, v. 146, article no. 105031 How to Cite?
AbstractObjectives: 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 Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/345800
ISSN
2023 Impact Factor: 4.8
2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.313

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorBai, Xuedong-
dc.contributor.authorChen, Yanning-
dc.contributor.authorZhou, Tianyu-
dc.contributor.authorPow, Edmond Ho Nang-
dc.contributor.authorTsoi, James Kit Hon-
dc.date.accessioned2024-08-28T07:52:12Z-
dc.date.available2024-08-28T07:52:12Z-
dc.date.issued2024-
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Dentistry, 2024, v. 146, article no. 105031-
dc.identifier.issn0300-5712-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/345800-
dc.description.abstractObjectives: 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.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Dentistry-
dc.subjectChemical stability-
dc.subjectColour stability-
dc.subjectComposite material-
dc.subjectInjectable-
dc.titleThe chemical and optical stability evaluation of injectable restorative materials under wet challenge-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105031-
dc.identifier.pmid38710315-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85192452701-
dc.identifier.volume146-
dc.identifier.spagearticle no. 105031-
dc.identifier.epagearticle no. 105031-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats