Own brand label restorative materials—A false bargain?

Johnsen, Gaute Floer; Thieu, Minh Khai Le; Hussain, Badra; Pamuła, Elżbieta; Reseland, Janne Elin; Lyngstadaas, Ståle Petter; Haugen, Håvard Jostein

doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2016.11.004

Cited by 11 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 72 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Various filler and resin modification strategies, used to facilitate adequate curing and other prerequisites, lead to the different performance of various products. The present study focused on the two most well-known and frequently purchased low-viscosity bulk fill composites in the Akershus region of Norway [ 11 , 12 ] and examined them using an array of mechanical, polymerisation, and biological tests. Our findings indicated that, other than for FM, Vickers hardness, and cytotoxicity on primary human osteoblasts, the tested bulk fills produced equal or better results than the conventional reference composite in all the other categories examined; thus, the null hypothesis was partially rejected.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bulk Fill Composites Have Similar Performance to Conventional Dental Composites

Haugen

Marović

Par

et al. 2020

IJMS

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bulk Fill Composites Have Similar Performance to Conventional Dental Composites

Haugen

Marović

Par

et al. 2020

IJMS

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Of course, success also depends upon carrying out the correct treatment and not having a premature failure of one aspect of treatment, as per Six Sigma. The use of materials with research to back them up, rather than own label ones which don't, 4 should help minimize failure. The first dentine-bonding agent that I used had five bottles, and they weren't even numbered!…”

Section: Trevor Burkementioning

confidence: 99%

Marginal gains in dentistry?

Burke¹

2018

Dent Update

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The dental restorative market is currently oversupplied with products, some unfortunately of variable quality 6 . The chemical and mechanical variations in these restorative materials give differing wear resistance, strength, elution of monomers, degree of curing, and indications for use 1 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nano-CT as tool for characterization of dental resin composites

Haugen

Qasim

Matinlinna

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Technological advances have made it possible to examine dental resin composites using 3D nanometer resolution. This investigation aims to characterize existing dental nano-hybrid and micro-hybrid resin composites through comparing and contrasting nano-computed tomography (nano-CT) with micro-CT and high-resolution SEM images. Eight commercially available and widely used dental resin composites, 2 micro-hybrid and 6 nano-hybrid were researched. Cured samples were examined and characterized using nano-CT (resolution 450 nm) and compared with micro-CT images (resolution 2 µm). Acquired images were reconstructed and image analysis was carried out to determine porosity and pore morphology. A comprehensive comparison of scanning micrograph images unsurprisingly revealed that the nano-CT images displayed greater detail of the ultrastructure of cured dental resin composites. Filler particle diameters and its volumes were lower when measured using nano-CT, porosity being higher where analysed at higher resolution. There were large variations between the examined materials. Fewer voids were found in Tetric EvoCeram and IPS Empress Direct, the smallest pores being found in Universal XTE and Tetric EvoCeram. Nano-CT was successfully used to investigate the morphology of dental resin composites and showed that micro-CT gives a lower porosity and pore size but overestimates filler particle size. There were large discrepancies between the tested composites. Evidence of porosities and pores within a specimen is a critical finding and it might have a detrimental effect on a material’s clinical performance.

show abstract

Own brand label restorative materials—A false bargain?

Cited by 11 publications

References 72 publications

Bulk Fill Composites Have Similar Performance to Conventional Dental Composites

Bulk Fill Composites Have Similar Performance to Conventional Dental Composites

Marginal gains in dentistry?

Nano-CT as tool for characterization of dental resin composites

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About