Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2022; 16(04): 828-832
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1740221
Original Article

Effects of Immediate Coating on Unset Composite with Different Bonding Agents to Surface Hardness

Nantawan Krajangta
1   Department of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Thammasat University, Pathumthani, Thailand
2   Thammasat University Research Unit in Restorative and Esthetic Dentistry, Thammasat University, Pathumthani, Thailand
,
Supissara Ninbanjong
3   Undergraduate Dental Student, Faculty of Dentistry, Thammasat University, Pathumthani, Thailand
,
Sunisa Khosook
4   Private Practice, Kudchum Hospital, Yasothon, Thailand
,
Kanjana Chaitontuak
5   Private Practice, Kutchap Hospital, Udonthani, Thailand
,
Awiruth Klaisiri
1   Department of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Thammasat University, Pathumthani, Thailand
2   Thammasat University Research Unit in Restorative and Esthetic Dentistry, Thammasat University, Pathumthani, Thailand
› Author Affiliations Funding The financial support was provided by Thammasat University Research Unit in Restorative and Esthetic Dentistry, Thammasat University, Pathumthani, Thailand.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objectives This study evaluated the surface microhardness of composite, affected by surface coating with different dental adhesive systems.

Materials and Methods A total of 100 composite discs were divided into five groups. Group 1 was uncoated (control group C), and groups 2 to 5 were coated with different adhesive systems (OptiBond FL: FL, OptiBond SOLO Plus: SOLO, OptiBond XTR: XTR, and OptiBond All in one: AIO, respectively). The Vickers microhardness (VHN) was measured without and with 500 thermocycles.

Statistical Analysis The data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey's posthoc test at the 95% confidence level.

Results At 24 hours, the VHN of C (59.96 ± 3.68) and FL (59.83 ± 4.54) were significantly higher than SOLO (51.73 ± 4.63) and AIO (51.45 ± 4.11). The VHN of XTR (54.96 ± 3.68) was not significant compared with that of C and all other groups. After thermocycling, VHN were significantly decreased in all groups. However, there were no significant differences among all groups.

Conclusions At 24 hours, composite coated with different adhesive systems have different effects to VHN. Thermocycling all adhesive resin systems coated on composite surface significantly decreased the VHN.

Keywords

dental adhesive systems - microhardness - surface coating - thermocycling


Publication History

Article published online:
18 February 2022

© 2022. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Rasines Alcaraz MG, Veitz-Keenan A, Sahrmann P, Schmidlin PR, Davis D, Iheozor-Ejiofor Z. Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent or adult posterior teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; (03) CD005620
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Dunn WJ, Strong TC. Effect of alcohol and unfilled resin in the incremental buildup of resin composite. Quintessence Int 2007; 38 (01) e20-e26
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Perdigăo J, Gomes G. Effect of instrument lubricant on the cohesive strength of a hybrid resin composite. Quintessence Int 2006; 37 (08) 621-625
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Purk JH, Dusevich V, Glaros A, Eick JD. Adhesive analysis of voids in Class II composite resin restorations at the axial and gingival cavity walls restored under in vivo versus in vitro conditions. Dent Mater 2007; 23 (07) 871-877
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Liebenberg WH. Bonding agent as an instrument lubricant: potential effect on marginal integrity. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 1999; 11 (04) 475-476 , 478
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Tuncer S, Demirci M, Tiryaki M, Unlü N, Uysal Ö. The effect of a modeling resin and thermocycling on the surface hardness, roughness, and color of different resin composites. J Esthet Restor Dent 2013; 25 (06) 404-419
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Bayraktar ET, Atali PY, Korkut B, Kesimli EG, Tarcin B, Turkmen C. Effect of modeling resins on microhardness of resin composites. Eur J Dent 2021; 15 (03) 481-487
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Moghaddasi N, Tavallali M, Jafarpour D, Ferooz R, Bagheri R. the effect of nanofilled resin-base coating on the mechanical and physical properties of resin composites. Eur J Dent 2021; 15 (02) 202-209
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Münchow EA, Sedrez-Porto JA, Piva E, Pereira-Cenci T, Cenci MS. Use of dental adhesives as modeler liquid of resin composites. Dent Mater 2016; 32 (04) 570-577
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Sedrez-Porto JA, Münchow EA, Cenci MS, Pereira-Cenci T. Translucency and color stability of resin composite and dental adhesives as modeling liquids - A one-year evaluation. Braz Oral Res 2017; 31: e54
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Melo AMDS, Santos TJSD, Tertulino MD. et al. Degree of conversion, translucency and intrinsic color stability of composites during surface modeling with lubricants. Braz J Oral Sci 2018; 17: 1-11
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Araujo FS, Barros MCR, Santana MLC. et al. Effects of adhesive used as modeling liquid on the stability of the color and opacity of composites. J Esthet Restor Dent 2018; 30 (05) 427-433
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Ghavami-Lahiji M, Firouzmanesh M, Bagheri H, Jafarzadeh Kashi TS, Razazpour F, Behroozibakhsh M. The effect of thermocycling on the degree of conversion and mechanical properties of a microhybrid dental resin composite. Restor Dent Endod 2018; 43 (02) e26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Szczesio-Wlodarczyk A, Sokolowski J, Kleczewska J, Bociong K. Ageing of dental composites based on methacrylate resins—A Critical review of the causes and method of assessment. Polymers (Basel) 2020; 12 (04) 882
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Minami H, Hori S, Kurashige H. et al. Effects of thermal cycling on surface texture of restorative composite materials. Dent Mater J 2007; 26 (03) 316-322
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Sideridou ID, Karabela MM, Bikiaris DN. Aging studies of light cured dimethacrylate-based dental resins and a resin composite in water or ethanol/water. Dent Mater 2007; 23 (09) 1142-1149
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 ISO 6507–1 Metallic materials—Vickers hardness test—Part 1: Test method. 2018
    Google Scholar
  • 18 ASTM E384–11, Standard test method for Knoop and Vickers hardness of materials. 2011
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Barcellos DC, Pucci CR, Torres CR, Goto EH, Inocencio AC. Effects of resinous monomers used in restorative dental modeling on the cohesive strength of composite resin. J Adhes Dent 2008; 10 (05) 351-354
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 de Paula FC, Valentin RdeS, Borges BC, Medeiros MC, de Oliveira RF, da Silva AO. Effect of instrument lubricants on the surface degree of conversion and crosslinking density of nanocomposites. J Esthet Restor Dent 2016; 28 (02) 85-91
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Patel J, Granger C, Parker S, Patel M. The effect of instrument lubricant on the diametral tensile strength and water uptake of posterior composite restorative material. J Dent 2017; 56: 33-38
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Kutuk ZB, Erden E, Aksahin DL, Durak ZE, Dulda AC. Influence of modeling agents on the surface properties of an esthetic nano-hybrid composite. Restor Dent Endod 2020; 45 (02) e13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Tay FR, Pashley DH. Have dentin adhesives become too hydrophilic?. J Can Dent Assoc 2003; 69 (11) 726-731
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Cadenaro M, Breschi L, Antoniolli F. et al. Degree of conversion of resin blends in relation to ethanol content and hydrophilicity. Dent Mater 2008; 24 (09) 1194-1200
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 ISO/TS 11405 Dentistry—Testing of adhesion to tooth structure. 2015
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Delaviz Y, Finer Y, Santerre JP. Biodegradation of resin composites and adhesives by oral bacteria and saliva: a rationale for new material designs that consider the clinical environment and treatment challenges. Dent Mater 2014; 30 (01) 16-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Tay FR, Carvalho RM, Pashley DH. Water movement across bonded dentin - too much of a good thing. J Appl Oral Sci 2004; 12 (spe): 12-25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Drummond JL. Degradation, fatigue, and failure of resin dental composite materials. J Dent Res 2008; 87 (08) 710-719
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Pala K, Tekçe N, Tuncer S, Serim ME, Demirci M. Evaluation of the surface hardness, roughness, gloss and color of composites after different finishing/polishing treatments and thermocycling using a multitechnique approach. Dent Mater J 2016; 35 (02) 278-289
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar