Site Map
Research Article
Effect of Instrument Lubricant on Water Sorption and Solubility of Incrementally Applied Nanofilled Resin Composite
Wala'a Abdulkarim Al-Towairqi1 and Ibrahim M Hamouda2*
1,2Faculty of Dentistry, Umm Alqura University, Saudi Arabia
2Faculty of Dentistry, Mansours University, Egypt

ABSTRACT
The stickiness of nanofilled resin composite is still one of its major disadvantages that haven't been corrected yet. Many techniques have been developed to overcome this issue, including the use of bonding agent as instrument lubricants. This research aimed to compare between 2 bonding agents when used as instrument lubricants and their effects on water sorption and solubility of nanofilled resin composite according to the number of increments applied. A total of 45 samples of nanofilled resin composite were prepared and divided into three groups according to the used instrument lubricants. The specimens were divided based on the number of increments applied (2, 3 and 4 increments). Water sorption and solubility were measured using calibrated electronic microbalance. Resin composite applied with 1-step adhesive system (5th generation) and 2-steps adhesive system (7th generation) showed a significant difference of water sorption when compared with nanofilled resin composite applied without lubricants. Resin composite applied with both lubricants showed insignificant difference in solubility when compared to nanofilled resin composite applied without lubricants. It was concluded that, using adhesive resin as instrument lubricants for nanofilled resin composite showed a significant effect on water sorption of the specimens. There was insignificant effect on the solubility of the nanofilled resin composite after using of the adhesive resin as instrument lubricants.
KEYWORDS
Incremental application; Lubricants; Nanofilled composite resin; Resin adhesives

Introduction
Tooth colored restorations were introduced to the field of dentistry over 40 years ago. In 1995, silicates were used as a restorative material followed by Polymethyl Methacrylate (PMMA) with its properties of ease of manipulation, insolubility in oral environment. In order to overcome these problems quartz powder particles were added to form a composite structure, it reduced the volume of the resin and thus reduced thermal expansion and contraction to approach the coefficient of thermal expansion of the tooth [1].

In 1962, a new type of composite materials was developed based on using bisphenol-A Glycidyl dimethacrylate (bis-GMA) a monomer that forms a cross-linked matrix and a surface treatment using silane coupling agent to bond the filler particles and the resin matrix which may decrease water sorption and solubility [1]. Composite was originally indicated for application in anterior teeth only, with later improvements in mechanical properties it was accepted to be used in posterior teeth too [2]. Resin composite has optical characteristics that mimic the tooth structure [1]. With recent advances in adhesive technology it became one of the most used restorative materials [3].

Many advances have been made to improve the properties of resin composite increasing the filler loading is one, it improves aesthetics and leads to reduction in polymerization shrinkage, water sorption and generally improves mechanical and physical properties [1]. Classification of dental composite was made according to the particle size of inorganic filler, based on this, it's divided into three main types: macrofilled, microfilled and hybrid composite, recent development of composite include nanocomposites, with (0.01 μm) filler size, these composite have superior optical characteristics and polishibility, improved strength and reliability compared with microfilled composite [1,4,5].

Resin composite must be placed incrementally to overcome the problem of polymerization shrinkage and to ensure that the material is fully polymerized [6]. A phenomenon known as the air-inhibiting layer makes incremental building up possible [7-9]. It is believed that oxygen inhibits polymerization of a thin superficial layer of resin composite. Thus, supplies double methyl methacrylate bond for copolymerization with another increment of the resin [10,11].

Difficulties with incremental building up of resin composite are adherence of the material to the instrument during application [12]. Despite the many advances in dental composite, its stickiness is still one of its major disadvantages [13]. Resin composite adheres to the instrument during insertion and condensation as reported by many clinicians [14,15]. Thus, increases the risk of voids and porosities in the final restoration, many techniques have been developed to overcome this issue, including development of plastic-ended, titanium coated instrument [16,17]. Another technique involves wiping the instrument with isopropyl alcohol-saturated gauze before sculpting composite [18].

Lubricating the instrument with unfilled adhesive resin before sculpting composite is also a will known technique used to overcome composite adherence. It has been agreed that using lubricant adversely affect the properties of composite, on the other hand incremental building up of composite also adversely affects the flexural strength of the final restoration [19]. This study was aimed to test the effects of using adhesive resins as lubricating agent for incremental application of nanofilled composite resins regarding water sorption and solubility.
Materials and Methods
The materials used in this study and their manufacturers are presented in table 1. 45 specimens of nanocomposites resin were prepared using a stainless steel split mold of 5 mm in diameters and 8 mm in depth. The composite resin paste was applied incrementally, each 2 mm thickness. The composite was condensed and contoured with un-lubricated stainless steel plugger to prepare the control group. Light polymerization was performed using halogen light curing unit (1000 Watt) for 10 seconds as recommended by the manufacturer. For preparation of the test groups, the plugger was dipped into each respective lubricant for 1 second (up to a 3 mm marked line on the instrument) and left to drip/drain for 2 seconds prior the condensation of the nanofilled composite resin [20]. The procedure was repeated to reach the planned number of increments for each group (Figure 1).

The specimens were classified as follow:

Group A: Specimens lubricated with 1 step adhesive system:
Subgroup A1: Specimens were prepared in 2 increments (5 samples)
Subgroup A2: Specimens were prepared in 3 increments (5 samples)
Subgroup A3: Specimens were prepared in 4 increments (5 samples)

Group B: Specimens lubricated with 2 step adhesive system:
Subgroup B1: Specimens were prepared in 2 increments (5 samples)
Subgroup B2: Specimens were prepared in 3 increments (5 samples)
Subgroup B3: Specimens were prepared in 4 increments (5 samples)

Group C: Specimens without adhesive lubrication:
Subgroup C1: Specimens were prepared in 2 increments (5 samples)
Subgroup C2: Specimens were prepared in 3 increments (5 samples)
Subgroup C3: Specimens were prepared in 4 increments (5 samples)

Specimens were placed in desiccators for desiccation, then were weighed using calibrated electronic microbalance and recorded as W1. Specimens were stored in deionized water container at 37°C for 1 week. Following storage, specimens were removed from water with a tweezer and waived in air, then reweighted W2.

Percentage of weight change was calculated as follow:

Weight change (water sorption, mg) =

The specimens were desiccated again and weighted W3. Water solubility was calculated as follow:

Water solubility (µg/mm3) = W1-W3/V.
Statistical Analysis
The recorded data were analyzed using ANOVA and LSD test was used to compare between groups at the level of significance P ≤ 0.05. Statistical analysis was performed with IBM® SPSS® Statistics Version 16.
Results
The statistical analysis of the results showed a significant difference in water sorption (P ≤ 0.05) (Table 2). In the control group (Group C), there were significant differences in water sorption between 2-layers and 3-layers and 4- layers (Table 3). Group A (Tetric N-Bond Universal) showed significant differences in water sorption between the different subgroups (A1, A2 and A3) at P ≤ 0.05. Group B (Tetric N-Bond) showed significant differences in water sorption between the different subgroups (B1, B2 and B3) at P ≤ 0.05. The highest amount of water sorption was recorded for Tetric N-Bond Universal (2-layers) followed by the 4-layers in the same group. The lowest amount of water sorption was recorded for the control group (2-layers). In general, Group A (Tetric N-Bond Universal) showed the highest amount of water sorption. Group C (control group) showed the lowest amount of water sorption. Group B (Tetric N-Bond) showed intermediate amount of water sorption.

The statistical analysis of the results showed no significant difference in water solubility (P ≥ 0.05) (Table 4). In the control group (Group C), the greatest amount of solubility was noted in 4-layers technique, while the least amount was seen in 2-layers application (Table 5). Group A (Tetric N-Bond Universal) showed higher water solubility in 4-layers technique, while the least amount was seen in 2-layers application. Group B (Tetric N-Bond) showed higher water solubility in 3-layers technique, while the least amount was seen in the other layers.
Discussion
Composite is made of a matrix composed of dimethacrylate monomers and urethane dimethacrylate which form a highly cross-linked, rigid and strong polymer matrix. Filler particles and a coupling agent to bond the two components together. The filler particles consist of aluminum silicate and lithium aluminum silicate glass particles or barium aluminum silicate or strontium glasses. Also addition of colloidal silica ultrafine particles helps controlling the handling characteristics of composite [1]. Monomers used in composition of dental composite include base monomer and diluents monomer, the first is relatively viscous while the latter has lower viscosity, making composite of high viscosity and causing adherence of composite to the instrument during application [7-9]. Various lubricants have been used to coat the instrument of application overcome this problem, including alcohol and bonding agents. Lubricants have been proved to cause deleterious effect on the properties of composite [20].

A study tested the degree of conversion and cross-linking density showed decreased degree of conversion and cross linking density, when lubricants was used [21]. Another study was conducted to assess the effect of instrument lubricant on the diametral tensile strength and water sorption of resin-composite, the results showed extremely reduced diametral tensile strength and increased water uptake in specimens placed with instrument lubricant compared with the control group. It's may be due to the decrease in the cohesive interface between the increments, also presence of unfilled content and HEMA caused the increased water uptake. However, resin composite placed with ethanol showed much less water sorption compared to those placed with bonding agent lubricants [20].

Exposed surfaces of the restoration leads to leaking of water into the bulk of the material. However composite exhibits two phenomena when immersed in water, the first is weight gain of the material as a result of hygroscopic absorption. Which can be measure as water sorption, the other is leaching out of unreacted monomers which leads to weight loss of the material, it can be measured as solubility [2]. Water sorption and solubility may be the reason of several physical and chemical processes that lead to deleterious effects in the resin composite structure. Water sorption and solubility affect dimensional changes of the resin; they also decrease surface hardness, wear resistance as well as impair color stability. Factors affecting water sorption and solubility of composite include types of composite used, chemical composition, storage time, pH of the storage solution and degree of polymerization [1].

The solubility of nanocomposites in comparison to conventional hybrid composite was comparable [22]. Heat treatment significantly decreased the sorption and solubility of the composite resin [23].

The results of this study showed that, composite resin which applied in two increments, three increments and four increments for each of the lubricants, and a control group with the same number of increments exhibited different values. For water sorption, specimens lubricated with 1 step adhesive system exhibit more weight gain in comparison with either the control or the 2 step adhesive system groups. Specimens applied in two layers with one step adhesive system showed the highest amount of water sorption. The control and the two test groups showed comparable solubility. However solubility records were increasing with the number of layers applied. Highest solubility was noted in specimens with 4 layers for all groups including the control group.

The change in the degree of conversion in resin composite when lubricants were used could be noted [21,24]. Using alcohol or unfilled resin during incremental application of composite doesn't the affect the flexural strength of the final restoration [15]. The lubricant used to reduce the stickiness between the composite instrument and the resin composite used for direct restorations did not affect the physical properties of the hybrid composite resin [25]. Thus, the instrument lubricants were proven to have deleterious effects in resin composite properties.
Conclusion
Within the limitation of our study the following conclusion was drawn:

1. Using adhesive resin as instrument lubricant for the nanofilled resin composite, it showed a significant effect on water sorption of the specimens
2. There was insignificant effect on the solubility of the nanofilled resin composite after using of the adhesive resin as instrument lubricants

References
  1. Anusavice KJ, Shen C, Rawls RH (2012) Phillips’ science of dental materials (12thedn). Elsevier Health Sciences, Philadelphia, USA.
  2. Criag RG (1997) Optical, thermal and electrical properties. In: Criag RC, Ward ML (eds.). Restorative dental materials (10thedn). Mosby, USA. Pg no: 584.
  3. Caneppele TM, Zogheib LV, Gomes I, Kuwana AS, Pagani C (2010) Bond strength of a composite resin to an adhesive luting cement. Braz Dent J 21: 322-326.
  4. Lutz F, Phillips RW (1983) A classification and evaluation of composite resin systems. J Prosthet Dent 50: 480-488.
  5. Curtis AR, Palin WM, Fleming GJ, Shortall AC, Marquis PM (2009) The mechanical properties of nanofilled resin-based composites: the impact of dry and wet cyclic pre-loading on bi-axial flexure strength. Dent Mater 25: 188-197.
  6. Podshadley AG, Gullett CE, Crim G (1985) Interface seal of incremental placement of visible light-cured composite resins. J Prosthet Dent 53: 625-626.
  7. Murchison DF, Chan DCN, Cooley RL (2006) Direct anterior restorations. In: Summitt JB, Robbins JW, Hilton TJ, Schwartz RS (eds.). Fundamentals of Operative Dentistry: A Contemporary Approach (3rdedn). Quintessence Pub, Chicago, USA.
  8. Rawls HR, Esquivel-Upshaw J (2003) Restorative resins. In: Anusavice KJ (ed). Phillips' Science of Dental Materials (11thedn). Elsevier Health Sciences, Philadelphia, USA.
  9. Ruyter IE (1981) Unpolymerized surface layers on sealants. Acta Odontol Scand 39: 27-32.
  10. Boyer DB, Chan KC, Reinhardt JW (1984) Build-up and repair of light-cured composites: bond strength. J Dent Res 63: 1241-1244.
  11. Vankerckhoven H, Lambrechts P, van Beylen M, Davidson CL, Vanherle G (1982) Unreacted methacrylate groups on the surfaces of composite resins. J Dent Res 61: 791-795.
  12. Miller MB (2002) Reality. Reality Publishing, Houston, USA. Pg No: 16:103-107.
  13. Bayne SC, Thompson JY, Swift EJ Jr, Stamatiades P, Wilkerson M (1998) A characterization of first-generation flowable composites. J Am Dent Assoc 129: 567-577.
  14. Liebenberg WH (1999) Bonding agent as an instrument lubricant: potential effect on marginal integrity. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 11: 475-478.
  15. Dunn WJ, Strong TC (2007) Effect of alcohol and unfilled resin in the incremental buildup of resin composite. Quintessence Int 38: 20-26.
  16. Opdam NJ, Roeters JJ, Peters TC, Burgersdijk RC, Kuijs RH (1996) Consistency of resin composites for posterior use. Dent Mater 12: 350-354.
  17. Powers JM, Craig R (2002) Composite Restorative Materials (11thedn). Restorative Dental Materials. St Louis: Mosby, London, UK.
  18. Sneed WD, Draughn RA (1980) Effect of alcohol on the strength of a composite resin. Oper Dent 5: 47-48.
  19. Heymann HO, Roberson TM, Sockwell CL (1995) Direct tooth-colored restorations for classes III, IV, and V cavity preparations. In: Sturdevant CM, Roberson TM, Heymann HO, Sturdevant JR (eds). The Art and Science of Operative Dentistry (3rdedn). St Louis, Mosby-Year Book, Missouri, USA. Pg No: 534-587.
  20. Patel J, Granger C, Parker S, Patel M (2017) The effect of instrument lubricant on the diametral tensile strength and water uptake of posterior composite restorative material. J Dent 56: 33-38.
  21. de Paula FC, Valentin Rde S, Borges BC, Medeiros MC, de Oliveira RF, et al. (2016) Effect of Instrument Lubricants on the Surface Degree of Conversion and Crosslinking Density of Nanocomposites. J Esthet Restor Dent 28: 85-91.
  22. AL-Shekhli AAR, Aubi IA (2014) Solubility of Nanofilled Versus Conventional Composites. Pakistan Oral & Dent J 34: 118-121.
  23. Muniz GR, Souza EM, Raposo CC, Santana IL (2013) Influence of heat treatment on the sorption and solubility of direct composite resins. Indian J Dent Res 24: 708-712.
  24. Pfeifer CS, Shelton ZR, Braga RR, Windmoller D, Machado JC, et al. (2011) Characterization of dimethacrylate polymeric networks: a study of the crosslinked structure formed by monomers used in dental composites. Eur Poly J 47: 162-170.
  25. Perdigăo J, Gomes G (2006) Effect of instrument lubricant on the cohesive strength of a hybrid resin composite. Quintessence Int 37: 621-625.

Figures


Figure 1: Showed a sample dimensions.

Tables

Material

( Tetric® N-Ceram)

Tetric® N-Bond Universal

Tetric® N-Bond

Composition

-Bis-GMA

-Ethoxylated Bis-EMA

-Barium glass ytterbium trifluoride, mixed oxide, silicon dioxide

-Prepolymers

-Methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate

-Methacrylated carboxylic acid polymer

-Hydroxyethyl ethacrylate

Bis-GMA

-Decandiol dimethacrylate

-Bis-GMA, dimethacrylate, hydroxyethyl methacrylate, phosphonic acid acrylate

-Nano-fillers (SiO2).

-Ethanol

 

Manufacturers

Ivoclar Vivadent,

Schaan/Liechtenstein

N-Bond Universal, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan/Liechtenstein

N-Bond Universal, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan/Liechtenstein

Form

Nanofilled composite paste

1-step adhesive system ( self-etch bottle)

2-step adhesive system

 ( adhesive bottle)

 

Table 1: Materials used.

 

Sum of squares

Df

Mean Squares

F

Significant

Between Groups

0.025

2

0.012

5.394

0.008

Within Groups

0.096

42

0.002

  

Total

121

44

   

 

Table 2: ANOVA test of water sorption of nanofilled composite resin applied with different adhesives.

Groups

Mean±

SDP-value

Control (Group C)

Subgroup C1 (2-layers)

0.09 mgE± 0.01

P value ≤ 0.05

Subgroup C2 (3-layers)

0.104D± 0.01

 

Subgroup C3 (4-layers)

0.108Da ±0.04

 

Tetric® N-Bond Universal (Group A)

Subgroup A1 (2-layers)

0.218A±0.09

 

Subgroup A2 (3-layers)

0.12C ± 0.03

 

Subgroup A3 (4-layers)

0.152B ± 0.04

 

Tetric® N-Bond  (Group B)

Subgroup B1 (2-layers)

0.14B ± 0.03

 

Subgroup B2 (3-layers)

0.126C± 0.02

 

Subgroup B2 (4-layers)

0.108D± 0.03

 

 

Table 3: Mean values and standard deviations of water sorption of nanofilled composite resin applied with different adhesives.
Means with different superscripted letters are significantly different

 

Sum of squares

Df

Mean Squares

F

Significant

Between Groups

0.001

2

0.00

0.388

0.681

Within Groups

0.033

42

0.001

  

Total

0.034

44

   
Table 4: ANOVA test of water solubility of nanofilled composite resin applied with different adhesives.
P-value was not significant (P ≥ 0.05)

Groups

Mean±

SDP-value

Control (Group C)

Subgroup C1 (2-layers)

0.022 ± 0.01 

P≥ 0.05

Subgroup C2 (3-layers)

0.03 ± 0.012

 

Subgroup C3 (4-layers)

0.048 ± 0.07

 

Tetric® N-Bond Universal (Group A)

Subgroup A1 (2-layers)

0.018 ± 0.004

 

Subgroup A2 (3-layers)

0.028 ± 0.008

 

Subgroup A3 (4-layers)

 0.034 ± 0.02

 

Tetric® N-Bond  (Group B)

Subgroup B1 (2-layers)

0.02 ± 0.007

 

Subgroup B2 (3-layers)

0.034 ± 0.01

 

Subgroup B2 (4-layers)

 0.02 ± 0.01

 

 

Table 5: Mean values and standard deviations of water solubility of nanofilled composite resin applied with different adhesives.
Means with different superscripted letters are significantly different

Citation: Al-Towairqi WA, Hamouda IM (2017) Effect of Instrument Lubricant on Water Sorption and Solubility of Incrementally Applied Nanofilled Resin Composite. J Nanotechnol Nanomed Nanobiotechnol 4: 019.