Physical-Mechanical Properties of Bulk Fill Composites Submitted to Biodegradation by Streptococcus mutans

Camassari, Jéssica Rodrigues; Correr-Sobrinho, Lourenço; Correr, Américo Bortolazzo; Puppin-Rontani, J.; Stipp, Rafael Nóbrega; Puppin‐Rontani, Regina Maria; Paula, Andréia Bolzan de

doi:10.1590/0103-6440202003196

Cited by 10 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Regarding the hardness analysis, it could be observed that Z250 conventional resin composite showed higher hardness at the 0–1 mm area than BFCs. These results are in accordance with previous findings, where it was found that conventional resin composites had significantly higher hardness values than several BFCs [ 29 30 ]. These results could be related to the presence of aluminum oxide in the Z250 material, also the differences in the organic matrix among the materials, such as the presence of elastic monomers within the BFCs composition, could also have an influence [ 31 32 ].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Physicochemical characterization of two bulk fill composites at different depths

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives This study analyzed the physical-chemical behavior of 2 bulk fill resin composites (BFCs; Filtek Bulk Fill [FBF], and Tetric-N-Ceram Bulk Fill [TBF]) used in 2- and 4-mm increments and compared them with a conventional resin composite (Filtek Z250). Materials and Methods Flexural strength and elastic modulus were evaluated by using a 3-point bending test. Knoop hardness was measured at depth areas 0–1, 1–2, 2–3, and 3–4 mm. The translucency parameter was measured using an optical spectrophotometer. Real-time polymerization kinetics was analyzed using Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. Results Flexural strength was similar among the materials, while TBF showed lower elastic modulus (Z250: 6.6 ± 1.3, FBF: 6.4 ± 0.9, TBF: 4.3 ± 1.3). The hardness of Z250 was similar only between 0–1 mm and 1–2 mm. Both BFCs had similar hardness until 2–3 mm, and showed significant decreases at 3–4 mm (FBF: 33.45 ± 1.95 at 0–1 mm to 23.19 ± 4.32 at 3–4 mm, TBF: 23.17 ± 2.51 at 0–1 mm to 15.11 ± 1.94 at 3–4 mm). The BFCs showed higher translucency than Z250. The polymerization kinetics of all the materials were similar at 2-mm increments. At 4-mm, only TBF had a similar degree of conversion compared with 2 mm. Conclusions The BFCs tested had similar performance compared to the conventional composite when used in up to 2-mm increments. When the increment was thicker, the BFCs were properly polymerized only up to 3 mm.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Physicochemical characterization of two bulk fill composites at different depths

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In 29 studies (63%), both Ra and GU were presented. 7,[9][10][11][12][14][15][16]19,[22][23][24][25][26][27]31,32,[38][39][40][41][42][44][45][46][47][48]51 Twelve of these studies (26%) showed a high or moderate inverse correlation between surface smoothness and gloss of resin composites. 9,12,16,19,26,27,32,33,41,44,45,51 Seventeen of the studies (37%) determined no significant correlation between surface roughness and gloss (Table 2).…”

Section: Evaluation Of Surface Roughness (Ra) and Gloss (Gu) Based On...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The commercial polishers that produced smoothest surfaces for microfills were Sof-Lex (0.04 μm) and Astropol (0.01 μm), and the polishers that produced glossiest surfaces were PoGo (71 GU), Astropol Twenty-four studies compared suprananofill/nanofill composites to other types of composites such as nanohybrid, microhybrid, hybrid, bulkfill, and flowable. 7,[9][10][11][12][14][15][16][18][19][20]24,26,27,29,32,33,35,37,38,42,44,45,47 In 15 of these studies, suprananofill and nanofilll composites presented smoother surfaces with Ra values ranging from 0.001 to 0.8 μm. The composite materials that presented the smoothest surfaces were Filtek Supreme, Estelite and Enamel Plus HFO.…”

Section: Evaluation Of Surface Roughness (Ra) and Gloss (Gu) Based On...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Development and maintenance of surface gloss of dental composites after polishing and brushing: Review of the literature

Amaya-Pajares

Koi

Watanabe

et al. 2022

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To describe the effect of the composites' composition to produce high surface smoothness/gloss using finishers/polishers, and to assess maintained smoothness/gloss under toothbrush abrasion. Materials and methods PubMed papers published from January 01, 2000 to September 01, 2021 were included, and keywords used were: filler particle size, shape, amount of dental composites; finishing/polishing, gloss/roughness, and toothbrush abrasion of composites. Seventy‐five in‐vitro studies were included in this literature review. Forty‐six articles assessed filler particle size/composition/shape and distribution to obtain high gloss/smoothness on different formulations; and the finishers/polishers effect on these materials. Twenty‐nine papers assessed toothbrush abrasion of composites. Results Suprananofill/nanofill/microfills typically showed the smoothest and glossiest surfaces compared to nanohybrid, microhybrid and hybrid composites. Microfill (0.04–0.07 μm, 71–88 GU); suprananofill (0.001–0.8 μm, 52–92 GU), microhybrids (0.05–0.35 μm, 35–95 GU) and nanohybrids (0.05–0.21 μm, 66–97 GU). Composites with small, spherical particles tend to show smoother, glossier surfaces and more wear resistant compared to resin composites with larger or irregular particles. Several studies showed higher roughness and reduced gloss after toothbrush abrasion. Conclusions Within the limitations of this study, suprananofill/nanofill/microfill composites tended to show the smoothest/glossiest surfaces due to smaller particle size. Composites with small, spherical particles tended to show smoother/glossier surfaces. Overall, toothbrush abrasion showed higher surface roughness and reduced gloss. Clinical Significance Suprananofills/nanofills/microfills had good polishability and polish retention due to their smaller particle size. The effectiveness of a polishing system is material‐dependent. In general, Enhance‐PoGo, Sof‐Lex discs, and Sof‐Lex Spiral wheels showed similar level of smoothness.

show abstract

“…Gloss and surface roughness are usually linked together, and the relationship between the two has been illustrated in previous studies [ 18 , 38 ]. Tunac et al [ 39 ] showed how filler size, distribution, geometry, and volume fraction could influence the polishing ability of composites, improving with smaller particle size and higher filler loading.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…A rougher surface loses its glossy aspect, affecting the esthetics of the restoration [ 17 ]. The softening of the organic matrix increases the wear exposure of inorganic fillers and their displacement, creating pores that increase biofilm accumulation and staining [ 18 , 19 ]. Examples of these most common agents are coffee, wine, tobacco, ethanol, and different kinds of oils available in the regular human diet [ 20 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optical Property Stability of Light-Cured versus Precured CAD-CAM Composites

Andrade

Borges

Kukulka

et al. 2022

International Journal of Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. The aim of this study was to evaluate the optical property changes after staining of precured (PC) and light-cured (LC) composites. Materials and Methods. Specimens were prepared using different LC composites (GrandioSO—Voco, Filtek Z350-3M/ESPE, Opallis—FGM, and Kalore—GC) and four PC blocks (Grandio Blocs—Voco, Lava Ultimate—3M ESPE, Brava Block—FGM, and Cerasmart—GC) from the same manufacturers (n = 20). Baseline color, gloss, translucency, and fluorescence were evaluated. The staining protocol was performed for 15 days, and the final optical properties were reevaluated. Results. The changes in each property were calculated (ΔGloss, ΔTranslucency, ΔFluorescency, ΔE ∗ 00). Data were analyzed by ANOVA and Tukey’s test (α = 5%). Changes in all properties were observed after staining for all materials, with darkening and reduction of gloss, fluorescence, and translucency. Nonsignificant differences were observed between the light-cured and precured materials of the same manufacturer for ΔG and ΔT, but significant differences existed for ΔF and ΔE ∗ 00. For ΔF, the only significant differences were observed between Brava Block and Opallis (smaller). For ΔE ∗ 00, only the light-cured composites GrandioSO and Z350 showed significantly less change than the corresponding blocks. Precured composites were affected the same way as light-cured ones by the staining in relation to the reduction of gloss and translucency. Conclusion. A higher reduction in fluorescence was observed for only one brand of block and was similar for the others. The two brands of light-cured materials showed less staining, while for the others, the staining was similar. The effects of staining vary according to the composite formulation.

show abstract

Physical-Mechanical Properties of Bulk Fill Composites Submitted to Biodegradation by Streptococcus mutans

Cited by 10 publications

References 22 publications

Physicochemical characterization of two bulk fill composites at different depths

Physicochemical characterization of two bulk fill composites at different depths

Development and maintenance of surface gloss of dental composites after polishing and brushing: Review of the literature

Optical Property Stability of Light-Cured versus Precured CAD-CAM Composites

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About