Microhardness and water solubility of expired and non-expired shelf-life composites

Abstract

Background:

The aim of this study was to determine the Vickers hardness and water solubility of expired and non-expired shelf-life bulk-fill and conventional dental composite material.

Methods:

Four different expired (E) (after 6 months) and non-expired (N) shelf-life composite resin materials (Clearfil Majesty ES-2 Enamel, Clearfil Majesty ES-2 Dentin, Tetric N-Ceram Bulk-Fill, and Tetric N-Ceram) were used. For each tested material, seven specimens were prepared and polymerized with a light curing unit. Vickers hardness measurements were made on the top and bottom surfaces. For the water sorption test, initially all specimens were weighted, the thickness and diameter of each specimen were measured, and the average volume of specimen was calculated. Then, each specimen was immersed in distilled water and kept in an incubator for 7 days and finally weighed again.

Results:

There was not any statistically significant difference between the microhardness results of expired and non-expired shelf-life composites on the top and bottom surfaces (p > 0.05). No significant difference was determined between the non-expired shelf-life composite materials on the top surfaces (p > 0.05). Non-expired Clearfil Majesty ES-2 Dentin showed lower microhardness than non-expired Tetric N-Ceram Bulk-Fill and non-expired Tetric N-Ceram on the bottom surface (p < 0.05). Expired Clearfil Majesty ES-2 Dentin showed lower microhardness results than expired Tetric N-Ceram Bulk-Fill on the top and bottom surfaces (p < 0.05). There was not any significant difference between the water sorption results of expired and non-expired shelf-life composites (p > 0.05). Expired Clearfil Majesty ES-2 Dentin showed higher water sorption than expired Tetric N-Ceram E-TN (p < 0.05).

Conclusion:

Expiration date did not affect the microhardness and water sorption of bulk-fill and conventional composites. The hardness and water sorption of the composite materials varied depending on the type of composites.

Keywords

Dentistry hardness composite resins

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Sadowsky

SJ.

An overview of treatment considerations for esthetic restorations: a review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent 2006; 96(6): 433–442.

Czasch

Ilie

In vitro comparison of mechanical properties and degree of cure of bulk fill composites. Clin Oral Invest 2013; 17(1): 227–235.

Ilie

Keßler

Durner

Influence of various irradiation processes on the mechanical properties and polymerisation kinetics of bulk-fill resin based composites. J Dent 2013; 41(8): 695–702.

Donohue

Apostolou

Shelf-life prediction for radiation-sterilized plastic devices. Med Dev Diagn Ind 1990; 12(1): 124–129.

Garcia Lda

Roselino Lde

Pires-de-Souza Fde

et al . Evaluation of the conversion degree, microhardness, and surface roughness of composite resins used after their expiration date. Gen Dent 2010; 58(6): e262–e267.

Ferracane

JL.

Correlation between hardness and degree of conversion during the setting reaction of unfilled dental restorative resins. Dent Mater 1985; 1(1): 11–14.

Daronch

Rueggeberg

De Goes

MF.

Monomer conversion of pre-heated composite. J Dent Res 2005; 84(7): 663–667.

Ferracane

JL.

Hygroscopic and hydrolytic effects in dental polymer networks. Dent Mater 2006; 22(3): 211–222.

Ferracane

Mitchem

Condon

et al . Wear and marginal breakdown of composites with various degrees of cure. J Dent Res 1997; 76(8): 1508–1516.

10.

Tirapelli

Panzeria

et al . Radiopacity and microhardness changes and effect of X-ray operating voltage in resin-based materials before and after the expiration date. Mater Res 2004; 7(3): 409–412.

11.

Garcia Lda

Mundim

Pires-de-Souza Fde

et al . Effect of artificial accelerated aging on the optical properties and monomeric conversion of composites used after expiration date. Gen Dent 2013; 61(7): e1–e5.

12.

Kawaguchi

Fukushima

Miyazaki

The relationship between cure depth and transmission coefficient of visible-light-activated resin composites. J Dent Res 1994; 73(2): 516–521.

13.

Burtscher

Visible light curing of composite resin. Ivoclar Vivadent AG Research & Development Scientific Service. Ivoclar Vivadent Report no. 18, August 2007, pp. 29–39.

14.

http://www.ivoclarvivadent.in/en-in/p/all/tetric-n-ceram-bulk-fill (accessed 22 January 2018).

15.

Musanje

Darvell

BW.

Aspects of water sorption from the air, water and artificial saliva in resin composite restorative materials. Dent Mater 2003; 19(5): 414–422.

16.

Flury

Hayoz

Peutzfeldt

et al . Depth of cure resin composites: is the ISO 4049 method suitable for bulk fill materials? Dent Mater 2012; 28(5): 521–528.

17.

Neumann

Miranda

Jr Schmitt

et al . Molar extinction coefficients and the photon absorption efficiency of dental photoinitiators and light curing units. J Dent 2005; 33(6): 525–532.

18.

Moore

Platt

Borges

et al . Depth of cure of dental resin composites: ISO 4049 depth and microhardness of types of materials and shades. Oper Dent 2008; 33(4): 408–412.