Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2021; 15(03): 481-487
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1725577
Original Article

Effect of Modeling Resins on Microhardness of Resin Composites

Ezgi T. Bayraktar
1   Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
,
Pinar Y. Atali
1   Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
,
Bora Korkut
1   Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
,
Ezgi G. Kesimli
1   Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
,
Bilge Tarcin
1   Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
,
Cafer Turkmen
1   Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objectives This study was aimed to determine the effects of modeling resins on the surface microhardness of composites.

Materials and Methods Six resin-based composites (Charisma Smart, Estellite Asteria, CeramX-One SphereTEC, Admira Fusion, Filtek Ultimate, and Clearfil Majesty Es-2) and three wetting agents (Modeling Liquid, Composite Primer, and Modeling Resin) were investigated. In all, 240 specimens were prepared, and wetting agents were applied prior to light curing in the experimental groups. After 24 hours, specimens were polished and Vickers microhardness (VHN) values were measured.

Statistical Analysis Shapiro–Wilk and two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used for analyses (p < 0.05).

Results Both modeling resin and composites were determined to be effective factors (p < 0.001). The control group showed the highest VHN (70.37 ± 7.94), followed by Modeling Liquid (64.68 ± 12.07), Composite Primer (59.84 ± 6.33), and Modeling Resin (58 ± 3.52b; p < 0.001). Filtek Ultimate showed the highest VHN (76.62 ± 9.78c), whereas Charisma Smart (58.87 ± 7.95), and Clearfil Majesty (67.27 ± 2.58) showed the lowest (p < 0.001). Clearfil Majesty–Modeling Liquid (46.62 ± 5.33) and Charisma Smart–Composite Primer (50.81 ± 0.39) combinations showed the lowest VHN, whereas Filtek Ultimate–control (87.15 ± 2.12) and Filtek Ultimate–Modeling Liquid (84.24 ± 3.11) showed the highest (p < 0.001).

Conclusion All tested modeling resins decreased VHN value, and the amount of reduction varied among composites and wetting agents. It might be safer not to use wetting agents unless they are necessary.

Keywords

composite - layering - microhardness - modeling resin - wetting agent


Publication History

Article published online:
26 May 2021

© 2021. European Journal of Dentistry. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

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

 

  • References

  • 1 Choi JW, Lee MJ, Oh SH, Kim KM. Changes in the physical properties and color stability of aesthetic restorative materials caused by various beverages. Dent Mater J 2019; 38 (01) 33-40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 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
  • 3 de Paula FC, Valentin RdeS, Borges BCD, Medeiros MCS, 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
  • 4 Korkut B. Smile makeover with direct composite veneers: a two-year follow-up report. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospect 2018; 12 (02) 146-151
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Sedrez-Porto JA, Münchow EA, Brondani LP. Cenci MS, Pereira-Cenci T. Effects of modeling liquid/resin and polishing on the color change of resin composite. Braz Oral Res 2016; 30 (01) 1-9
    Google Scholar
  • 6 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
  • 7 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
  • 8 Barcellos DC, Pucci CR, Torres CRG, 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
  • 9 Perea-Lowery L, Tolvanen M, Vallittu PK. Evaluation of the effect of monomer systems on the softening of a composite resin. Int J Prosthodont 2019; 32 (01) 101-103
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 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
  • 11 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
  • 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 Sedrez-Porto JA, Munchow 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: 54-61
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Scribante A, Bollardi M, Chiesa M, Poggio C, Colombo M. Flexural properties and elastic modulus of different esthetic restorative materials: evaluation after exposure to acidic drink. BioMed Res Int 2019; 2019: 5109481
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Ruschel VC, Bona VS, Baratieri LN, Maia HP. Effect of surface sealants and polishing time on composite surface roughness and microhardness. Oper Dent 2018; 43 (04) 408-415
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Khalichi P, Singh J, Cvitkovitch DG, Santerre JP. The influence of triethylene glycol derived from dental composite resins on the regulation of Streptococcus mutans gene expression. Biomaterials 2009; 30 (04) 452-459
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Elzoheiry A, Hafez A, Amr H. Microhardness testing of resin cement versus sonic bulk fill resin composite material for cementation of CAD/CAM composite block with different thickness. Egypt Dent J 2019; 65: 69-78
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Toras FM, Hamouda IM. Effect of nano filler on microhardness, diametral tensile strength and compressive strength of nano-filled glass ionomer. Int J Dentistry Oral Sci 2017; 4: 413-417
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Liebermann A, Spintzyk S, Reymus M, Schweizer E, Stawarczyk B. Nine prophylactic polishing pastes: impact on discoloration, gloss, and surface properties of a CAD/CAM resin composite. Clin Oral Investig 2019; 23 (01) 327-335
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Sahbaz C, Bahsi E, Ince B, Bakir EP, Cellik O. Effect of the different finishing and polishing procedures on the surface roughness of three different posterior composite resins. Scanning 2016; 38 (05) 448-454
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Dhananjaya KM, Vadavadagi SV, Almalki SA, Verma T, Arora S, Kumar NN. In vitro analysis of different polishing systems on the color stability and surface roughness of nanocomposite resins. J Contemp Dent Pract 2019; 20 (11) 1335-1338
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Toz Akalin T, Genç G, Korkmaz Ceyhan Y, Ozturk Bozkurt F. The effect of mouth rinses on the color stability of sonicfill and a nanohybrid composite. J Istanb Univ Fac Dent 2016; 50 (02) 17-23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Poggio C, Lombardini M, Gaviati S, Chiesa M. Evaluation of Vickers hardness and depth of cure of six composite resins photo-activated with different polymerization modes. J Conserv Dent 2012; 15 (03) 237-241
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Mandikos MN, McGivney GP, Davis E, Bush PJ, Carter JM. A comparison of the wear resistance and hardness of indirect composite resins. J Prosthet Dent 2001; 85 (04) 386-395
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Başeren M. Surface roughness of nanofill and nanohybrid composite resin and ormocer-based tooth-colored restorative materials after several finishing and polishing procedures. J Biomater Appl 2004; 19 (02) 121-134
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Nayyer M, Zahid S, Hassan SH. et al. Comparative abrasive wear resistance and surface analysis of dental resin-based materials. Eur J Dent 2018; 12 (01) 57-66
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Ilie N, Hilton TJ, Heintze SD. et al. Academy of dental materials guidance-resin composites: part i-mechanical properties. Dent Mater 2017; 33 (08) 880-894
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Ali M, Hussein MA, Al-Aqeeli N. Optimization of spark plasma sintering parameters using the taguchi method for developing Mg-based composites. J Miner Met Mater Soc 2020; 72: 1186-1194
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 29 de Moraes RR, Gonçalves LdeS, Lancellotti AC, Consani S, Correr-Sobrinho L, Sinhoreti MA. Nanohybrid resin composites: nanofiller loaded materials or traditional microhybrid resins?. Oper Dent 2009; 34 (05) 551-557
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Kim K-H, Ong JL, Okuno O. The effect of filler loading and morphology on the mechanical properties of contemporary composites. J Prosthet Dent 2002; 87 (06) 642-649
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Blackham JT, Vandewalle KS, Lien W. Properties of hybrid resin composite systems containing prepolymerized filler particles. Oper Dent 2009; 34 (06) 697-702
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Koc-Vural U, Baltacioglu I, Altinci P. Color stability of bulk-fill and incremental-fill resin-based composites polished with aluminum-oxide impregnated disks. Restor Dent Endod 2017; 42 (02) 118-124
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Barszczewska-Rybarek IM. Structure-property relationships in dimethacrylate networks based on Bis-GMA, UDMA and TEGDMA. Dent Mater 2009; 25 (09) 1082-1089
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Pratap B, Gupta RK, Bhardwaj B, Nag M. Resin based restorative dental materials: characteristics and future perspectives. Jpn Dent Sci Rev 2019; 55 (01) 126-138
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Chou KF, Han CC, Lee S. Water transport in 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate copolymer irradiated by γ rays in air and related phenomena. J Polym Sci Pol 2000; 38: 659-671
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Lu KP, Fu YK, Lee S. Hardness of irradiated hydroxyethyl methacrylate copolymer at elevated temperatures. J Appl Polym Sci 2009; 113: 657-661
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Kundie F, Azhari CH, Muchtar A, Ahmad ZA. Effects of filler size on the mechanical properties of polymer-filled dental composites: A review of recent developments. J Physiol Sci 2018; 29: 141-165
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Prentice LH, Tyas MJ, Burrow MF. The effect of ytterbium fluoride and barium sulphate nanoparticles on the reactivity and strength of a glass-ionomer cement. Dent Mater 2006; 22 (08) 746-751
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Klapdohr S, Moszner N. New inorganic components for dental filling composites. Monatsh Chem/Chemical Monthly 2005; 136: 21-45
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Liu Y, Sun Y, Zeng F, Xie W, Liu Y, Geng L. Effect of nano SiO2particles on the morphology and mechanical properties of POSS nanocomposite dental resins. J Nanopart Res 2014; 16: 1-8
    Google Scholar