All bulk-fill composites presented a considerable 24-hour postcure DC increase and clinically acceptable DC at depths up to 4 mm. Conventional control composites were sufficiently cured only up to 2 mm, despite significant postcure polymerization.

No abstract

No abstract

Resin composites containing reinforcing inert glass fillers combined with bioactive glass (BG) can aid in the prevention of secondary caries, which is a major cause of failure of contemporary composite restorations. A series of previous studies on experimental resin composites filled with BG 45S5 has demonstrated that methacrylate resin polymerization can be impaired by the addition of unsilanized BG, leading to lower degrees of conversion (DC). In order to distinguish whether the polymerization inhibition is caused by a direct (temperature-independent) effect of BG or an indirect (temperature-dependent) effect of restricted mobility of reactive species, this study used Raman spectroscopy to evaluate the DC values of experimental composites post-cured at 37 °C and 150 °C. The potential of BG to adversely affect DC was highly dependent on the resin system. The highest DC reduction was observed in the resin system based on ethoxylated bisphenol A dimethacrylate (Bis-EMA), followed by bisphenol A glycidyl methacrylate (Bis-GMA). In contrast, the DC for urethane dimethacrylate (UDMA) was not compromised by BG. Increasing the mobility of reactive species by heating at 150 °C showed limited potential for increasing the DC in the Bis-EMA and Bis-GMA resin systems, indicating a direct inhibitory effect of BG on polymerization.

No abstract

The aim of the study was to perform comprehensive characterization of two commonly used bulk fill composite materials (SDR Flow (SDR) and Filtek™ Bulk Fill Flowable Restorative (FBF) and one conventional composite material (Tetric EvoCeram; TEC). Eleven parameters were examined: flexural strength (FS), flexural modulus (FM), degree of conversion, depth of cure, polymerisation shrinkage (PS), filler particle morphology, filler mass fraction, Vickers hardness, surface roughness following simulated toothbrush abrasion, monomer elution, and cytotoxic reaction of human gingival fibroblasts, osteoblasts, and cancer cells. The degree of conversion and depth of cure were the highest for SDR, followed by FBF and TEC, but there was no difference in PS between them. FS was higher for bulk fill materials, while their FM and hardness were lower than those of TEC. Surface roughness decreased in the order TEC→SDR→FBF. Bisphenol A-glycidyl methacrylate (BisGMA) and urethane dimethacrylate were found in TEC and FBF eluates, while SDR released BisGMA and triethylene glycol dimethacrylate. Conditioned media accumulated for 24h from FBF and TEC were cytotoxic to primary human osteoblasts. Compared to the conventional composite, the tested bulk fill materials performed equally or better in most of the tests, except for their hardness, elastic modulus, and biocompatibility with osteoblasts.

This study introduced an experimental bioactive glass (BG) with a lower Na2O content than conventional BG 45S5 (10.5 wt% vs. 24.5 wt%), additionally containing CaF2 (12 wt%) and a network connectivity similar to that of BG 45S5. A series of experimental composites functionalized with 5–40 wt% of the novel BG was prepared and compared to a corresponding series of experimental composites functionalized with 5–40 wt% of BG 45S5. Commercial acid-neutralizing materials (alkasite, giomer, and glass ionomer) were used as references. The capabilities of the materials to neutralize hydrochloric acid (pH = 2.6) and lactic acid (pH = 4.5) were evaluated by real-time pH measurements over 1 h. The degree of conversion and precipitation of calcium phosphate were also investigated. Data were analyzed using one-way and Welch ANOVA at an overall level of significance of 0.05. The acid-neutralizing potential of the experimental BG incorporated into resin composites was generally comparable to that of BG 45S5, and better than that of a giomer and glass ionomer. Fluorine was identified in the precipitate that developed on the composites functionalized with the experimental BG, suggesting a capability of forming fluorapatite. Unlike the 45S5 composition, the experimental BG did not impair the degree of conversion of resin composites. The novel BG filler is therefore an interesting candidate for future investigations of caries-preventive resin composites, and their potential clinical applicability for restorative, preventive, and orthodontic purposes.

The aim of this study was to investigate whether experimental and commercial dental restorative materials with functional fillers can exert a protective anti-demineralizing effect on enamel that is not immediately adjacent to the restoration. Four experimental resin composites with bioactive glass and three commercial restorative materials were investigated. Enamel blocks were incubated in a lactic acid solution (pH = 4.0) at a standardized distance (5 mm) from cured specimens of restorative materials. The lactic acid solution was replenished every 4 days up to a total of 32 days. Surfaces of enamel blocks were periodically evaluated by Knoop microhardness measurements and scanning electron microscopy. The protective effect of restorative materials against acid was identified as enamel microhardness remaining unchanged for a certain number of 4-day acid addition cycles. Additionally, the pH of the immersion medium was measured. While enamel microhardness in the control group was maintained for 1 acid addition cycle (4 days), restorative materials postponed enamel softening for 2–5 cycles (8–20 days). The materials capable of exerting a stronger alkalizing effect provided longer-lasting enamel protection. The protective and alkalizing effects of experimental composites improved with higher amounts of bioactive glass and were better for conventional bioactive glass 45S5 compared to a fluoride-containing bioactive glass. Scanning electron micrographs evidenced the protective effect of restorative materials by showing a delayed appearance of an etching pattern on the enamel surface. A remotely-acting anti-demineralizing protective effect on enamel was identified in experimental composites functionalized with two types of bioactive glass, as well as in three commercial ion-releasing restorative materials.