Six-month color change and water sorption of 9 new-generation flowable composites in 6 staining solutions

Abstract Color match and water sorption are two factors that affect restorative materials. Discoloration is essential in the lifespan of restorations. The aim of this study was to evaluate color change and water sorption of nine flowable composites at multiple time points over 6 months. 60 samples of each composite were divided into two groups (Color Change and Water Sorption/Solubility). Each Color Change group was divided into six subgroups, which were immersed in distilled water (DW), coffee (CF), Coca-Cola (CC), red wine (RW), tea (TE) and orange juice (OJ). The color was measured at the baseline, 1, 2, 3 and 4 weeks, and 3 and 6 months and color change values (ΔE) were calculated. Each Water Sorption [WS]/Solubility [WL] group was tested according to ISO 4049:2009. The data were evaluated using two-way ANOVA, Fisher’s post-hoc test and Pearson’s correlation test. The composite with the lowest ΔE differed for each solution: Filtek™ Bulk Fill in DW (∆E = 0.73 (0.17–1.759)); Vertise Flow in CF (∆E = 14.75 (7.91–27.41)), in TE (∆E = 7.27 (2.81–24.81)) and OJ (∆E = 3.17 (0.87–9.92)); Tetric EvoFlow® in CC (∆E = 1.27 (0.45–4.02)); and Filtek™ Supreme XTE in RW (∆E = 8.88 (5.23–19.59)). RW caused the most discoloration (∆E = 23.62 (4.93–51.36)). Vertise Flow showed the highest water sorption (WS = 69.10 ± 7.19). The Pearson test showed statistically significant positive correlations between water sorption and solubility and between water sorption and ∆E; the positive solubility-∆E correlation was not statistically significant. The findings suggest that water sorption is one factor associated with the ability of composites to discolor; however, discoloration is a multifactorial problem

Shear bond strength of different adhesives to Er:YAG laser-prepared dentin

PubMed ID: 17080880Purpose: The aim of this study was to examine the influence of Er:YAG laser on the shear bond strength of three different adhesives to lased dentin. Materials and Methods: Seventy specimens obtained from 35 extracted human molars were embedded in polyester resin and ground with silicon carbide papers. The samples were divided into seven groups. 1. Er:YAG laser (Key Laser 3, KaVo) + Clearfil Protect Bond (Kuraray); 2. Er:YAG laser + Clearfil tri-S Bond (Kuraray); 3. Er:YAG laser + 37% H3PO4 + Single Bond 2 (3M-ESPE); 4. Er:YAG laser + Single Bond 2; 5. conventional method + Clearfil Protect Bond; 6. conventional method + Clearfil tri-S Bond; 7. conventional method + 37% H3PO4 + Single Bond 2. The samples were subjected to shear bond testing 24 h after bonding. Statistical analyses were carried out by two-way ANOVA, t-test, one-way ANOVA, post-hoc Tukey's and Dunnett C test (p = 0.05). Results: Only the Er:YAG laser + Clearfil tri-S Bond group demonstrated significantly higher bond strengths vs conventionally prepared specimens (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences between the shear bond strengths of Single Bond 2 adhesive applied to laser- vs bur-treated specimens (p > 0.05). In laser prepared samples, Clearfil Protect Bond showed the highest scores (p < 0.05), whereas in conventionally prepared groups, no statistical differences were observed between Clearfil Protect Bond and Clearfil tri-S Bond (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Er:YAG laser irradiation did not adversely affect the shear bond strength of Single Bond 2 and Clearfil Protect Bond to dentin, whereas it increased the shear bond strength values of Clearfil tri-S Bond