No abstract

Objectives:This study evaluated the effect of sports and energy drinks on the surface hardness of different composite resin restorative materials over a 1-month period. Material and Methods:A total of 168 specimens: Compoglass F, Filtek Z250, Filtek Supreme, and Premise were prepared using a customized cylindrical metal mould and they were divided into six groups (N=42; n=7 per group). For the control groups, the specimens were stored in distilled water for 24 hours at 37º C and the water was renewed daily. For the experimental groups, the specimens were immersed in 5 mL of one of the following test solutions: Powerade, Gatorade, X-IR, Burn, and Red Bull, for two minutes daily for up to a 1-month test period and all the solutions were refreshed daily. Surface hardness was measured using a Vickers hardness measuring instrument at baseline, after 1-week and 1-month. Data were statistically analyzed using Multivariate repeated measure ANOVA and Bonferroni's multiple comparison tests (α=0.05). Results:Multivariate repeated measures ANOVA revealed that there were statistically significant differences in the hardness of the restorative materials in different immersion times (p<0.001) in different solutions (p<0.001). The effect of different solutions on the surface hardness values of the restorative materials was tested using Bonferroni's multiple comparison tests, and it was observed that specimens stored in distilled water demonstrated statistically significant lower mean surface hardness reductions when compared to the specimens immersed in sports and energy drinks after a 1-month evaluation period (p<0.001). The compomer was the most affected by an acidic environment, whereas the composite resin materials were the least affected materials. Conclusions:The effect of sports and energy drinks on the surface hardness of a restorative material depends on the duration of exposure time, and the composition of the material.

No abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of sports and energy drinks on the surface hardness of different restorative materials over a 6-month period. Forty-two disk-shaped specimens were prepared for each of the four restorative materials tested: Compoglass F, Filtek Z250, Filtek Supreme, and Premise. Specimens were immersed for 2 min daily, up to 6 months, in six storage solutions (n=7 per material for each solution): distilled water, Powerade, Gatorade, X-IR, Burn, and Red Bull. Surface hardness was measured at baseline, after 1 week, 1 month, and 6 months. Data were analyzed statistically using repeated measures ANOVA followed by the Bonferroni test for multiple comparisons (α=0.05). Surface hardness of the restorative materials was significantly affected by both immersion solution and immersion period (p<0.001). All tested solutions induced significant reduction in surface hardness of the restorative materials over a 6-month immersion period.

PURPOSEThe purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the effects of different surface pretreatment techniques on the surface roughness and shear bond strength of a new self-adhering flowable composite resin for use with lithium disilicate-reinforced CAD/CAM ceramic material.MATERIALS AND METHODSA total of one hundred thirty lithium disilicate CAD/CAM ceramic plates with dimensions of 6 mm × 4 mm and 3 mm thick were prepared. Specimens were then assigned into five groups (n=26) as follows: untreated control, coating with 30 µm silica oxide particles (Cojet™ Sand), 9.6% hydrofluoric acid etching, Er:YAG laser irradiation, and grinding with a high-speed fine diamond bur. A self-adhering flowable composite resin (Vertise Flow) was applied onto the pre-treated ceramic plates using the Ultradent shear bond Teflon mold system. Surface roughness was measured by atomic force microscopy. Shear bond strength test were performed using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Surface roughness data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and the Tukey HSD tests. Shear bond strength test values were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests at α=.05.RESULTSHydrofluoric acid etching and grinding with high-speed fine diamond bur produced significantly higher surface roughness than the other pretreatment groups (P<.05). Hydrofluoric acid etching and silica coating yielded the highest shear bond strength values (P<.001).CONCLUSIONSelf-adhering flowable composite resin used as repair composite resin exhibited very low bond strength irrespective of the surface pretreatments used.

Bulk-fill composites show structural differences compared to those of conventional resin composites. Their more reactive photoinitiators, monomer compositions, and increased filler content may result in higher color stability than for conventional ones. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the color stability of three different bulk-fill composites and one conventional resin composite with a higher filler load after 1 week and 1 month of immersion in different drinks. The resin composite materials that were tested demonstrated significantly different color changes after immersion in the four solutions during both evaluation periods. Immersion in coffee and red wine showed noticeable staining of all the materials. The discoloration effect of staining solutions on the resin composites depends both on the material composition and on the pigment types found in the solutions. K E Y W O R D Sbulk-fill composites, coffee, cola, color stability, red wine

No abstract

PurposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of a surface sealant on the surface roughness of different composites and compare their microhardness values. Materials and MethodsSixty disc-shaped specimens were prepared and assigned to 6 groups (n =10). Groups were prepared as follows; Group 1 (Herculite XRV Ultra), Group 2 (Beautifil Bulk Restorative) and Group 3 (Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative). Groups 4, 5, and 6 were prepared by applying a surface sealant (BisCover LV) on the specimens in groups 1, 2 and 3. Surface hardness of the discs in group 1, 2, and 3 and surface roughness of the discs in all groups were measured using the Vickers hardness test and a profilometer, respectively. One-way ANOVA was used to test for differences among the groups. ResultsNo significant differences were observed in the microhardness and roughness between the experimental and control groups for each restorative materials. Group 3 showed the highest surface hardness and group 4 showed the lowest surface roughness values. ConclusionUsing the BisCover LV resin after the polishing step has no significant effect on the surface roughness. The highest hardness values were obtained for the Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative after the polishing step. The smoothest surfaces were obtained for all experimental groups using the BisCover LV resin after the polishing step, Herculite XRV Ultra showed lower average roughness values than the other materials.