SpringerLink
Log in

Influence of the self-adhering strategy on microhardness, sorption, solubility, color stability, and cytotoxicity compared to bulk-fill and conventional resin composites

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To analyze and compare, in vitro, the microhardness, sorption, solubility, color stability, and cytotoxicity of three types of resin composites: self-adhesive (SARC) (Dyad Flow (DF)/Kerr), bulk-fill (Filtek Bulk Fill Flow (FBF)/3 M ESPE), and conventional (Filtek Z350XT Flow (Z350)/3 M ESPE).

Materials and methods

Thirty cylindrical specimens were prepared using a split metal mold (15 mm × 1 mm), divided into 3 groups (n = 10) according to the material used. Vickers hardness (VH) was calculated from three indentations (300gf/15 s) per specimen. The sorption and solubility were measured according to the ISO 4049:2009 specification after storing in distilled water for 7 days. The color of each resin composite was measured using a portable digital spectrophotometer according to the CIELAB system. After a 7-day immersion in coffee, the color variation (∆E) was calculated. Following the ISO 10993:2012, the cytotoxicity in Vero cells was evaluated through the MTT assay. The results were analyzed using the Kruskal–Wallis test to compare the studied groups. The Wilcoxon test was used to compare the assessments in each studied group. For cytotoxicity analysis, the data were compared by the ANOVA test (α = 0.05).

Results

DF showed the lowest VH (28.67), highest sorption (0.543 µg/mm3) and solubility (1.700 µg/mm3), and higher ∆E after 7 days of coffee immersion (p = 0.008). The resin composites studied were considered non-cytotoxic.

Conclusions

The SARC presented inferior mechanical and physical–chemical properties than bulk-fill and conventional resin composites, with comparable cytotoxicity against Vero cells.

Clinical relevance

The simplification of the clinical protocol of SARC can minimize the number of possible failures during the restorative technique. However, considering their inferior physical and mechanical properties, their coverage with materials of higher mechanical properties and physical–chemical stability should be considered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Germany)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Oliveira NG, Lima ASLC, Silveira MT, Araújo PRS, Monteiro GQM, Carvalho MV (2019) Evaluation of postoperative sensitivity in restorations with self-adhesive resin: a randomized split-mouth design-controlled study. Clin Oral Investig 24:1829–1835. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-03046-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. De Brito OFF, De Oliveira ILM, Monteiro GQM (2019) Hydrolytic and biological degradation of bulk-fill and self-adhering resin composites. Oper Dent 44:E223–E233. https://doi.org/10.2341/17-390-L

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Boaro LCC, Lopes DP, de Souza ASC, Nakano EL, Perez MDA, Pfeifer CS, Gonçalves F (2019) Clinical performance and chemical-physical properties of bulk fill composites resin - a systematic review and meta- analysis. Dent Mater 35:e249–e264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2019.07.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Szesz A, Parreiras S, Martini E, Reis A, Loguercio A (2017) Effect of flowable composites on the clinical performance of non-carious cervical lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 65:11–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2017.07.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Canali GD, Ignácio SA, Rached RN, Souza EM (2019) One-year clinical evaluation of bulk-fill flowable vs. regular nanofilled composite in non-carious cervical lesions. Clin Oral Investig 23:889–897. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2509-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. David C, Cardoso CG, Isolan CP, Piva E, Moraes RR, Cuevas-Suarez CE (2021) Bond strength of self- adhesive flowable composite resins to dental tissues: a systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies. J Prosthet Dent 7: S0022–3913(21)00102–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.02.020

  7. Durão MA, Andrade AKM, Santos MCMS, Montes MAJR, Monteiro GQM (2021) Clinical performance of bulk-fill resin composite restorations using the United States Public Health Service and Federation Dentaire Internationale Criteria: a 12-month randomized clinical trial. Eur J Dent 15:179–192. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1718639

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Marigo L, Spagnuolo G, Malara F, Martorana GE, Cordaro M, Lupi A, Nocca G (2015) Relation between conversion degree and cytotoxicity of a flowable bulk-fill and three conventional flowable resin-composites. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 19:4469–4480

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rizzante FAP, Duque JA, Duarte MAH, Mondelli RFL, Mendonça G, Ishikiriama SK (2019) Polymerization shrinkage, microhardness and depth of cure of bulk fill resin composites. Dent Mater J 38:403–410. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2018-063

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Maas MS, Alania Y, Natale LC, Rodrigues MC, Watts DC, Braga RR (2017) Trends in restorative composites research: what is in the future? Braz Oral Res 31:e55. https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107BOR-2017.vol31.0055

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Shafiei F, Saadat M (2016) Micromorphology and bond strength evaluation of adhesive interface of a self-adhering flowable composite resin-dentin: effect of surface treatment. Microsc Res Tech 79:403–407. https://doi.org/10.1002/jemt.22643

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Pan Y, Xu X, Sun F, Meng X (2018) Surface morphology and mechanical properties of conventional and self-adhesive resin cements after aqueous aging. J Appl Oral Sci 27:e20170449. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-7757-2017-0449

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Ferracane JL, Stansburry JW, Burke FJT (2011) Self-adhesive resin cements – chemistry, properties and clinical considerations. J Oral Rehabil 38:295–314. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2010.02148.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hanabusa M, Mine A, Kuboki T, Momoi Y, Landuyt KLV, Meerbeek BV, Munck JD (2011) TEM interfacial characterization of an experimental self-adhesive filling material bonded to enamel/dentin. Dent Mater 27:818–824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.04.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Chesterman J, Jowett A, Gallacher A, Nixon P (2017) Bulk-fill resin-based composite restorative materials: a review. Br Dent J 222:337–344. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2017.214

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hashemikamangar SS, Meymand MZ, Kharazifard MJ, Valizadeh S (2020) Surface microhardness of a self-adhesive composite in comparison with conventional composite resins. Dent Med Probl 57:247–253. https://doi.org/10.17219/dmp/118123

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Espíndola-Castro LF, Durão MA, Pereira TVG, Cordeiro AKB, Monteiro GQM (2020) Evaluation of microhardness, sorption, solubility, and color stability of bulk fill resins: a comparative study. J Clin Exp Dent 12:e1033–e1038. https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.57599

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Hashemikamangar SS, Meymand MZ, Kharazifard MJ, Valizadeh S (2020) Surface microhardness of a self-adhesive composite in comparison with conventional composite resins. Dent Med Probl 57:247–253. https://doi.org/10.17219/dmp/118123

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 4049: Dentistry polymer – based filling, restorative and luting materials. Switzerland, 2009. Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/42898.html. Accessed February 5, 2020

  20. Shiozawa M, Takahashi H, Asakawa Y, Iwasaki N (2015) Color stability of adhesive resin cements after immersion in coffee. Clin Oral Investig 19:309–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-014-1272-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Espíndola-Castro LF, Brito OFF, Araújo LGA, Santos ILA, Monteiro GQM (2020) In vitro evaluation of physical and mechanical properties of light-curing resin cement: a comparative study. Eur J Dent 14:152–156. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1705075

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 10993: Biological evaluation of medical devices - Part 5: Tests for In vitro cytotoxicity. Switzerland, 2009. Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/42898.html.Accessed February 5, 2020

  23. Liebermann A, Wimmer T, Schmidlin PR, Scherer H, Loffler P, Malgorzata R, Stawarczyk B (2016) Physicomechanical characterization of polyetheretherketone and current esthetic dental CAD/CAM polymers after aging in different storage media. J Prosthet Dent 115:321-328.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.09.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Blackham JT, Vandewalle KS, Lien W (2009) Properties of hybrid resin composite systems containing prepolymerized filler particles. Oper Dent 34:697–702. https://doi.org/10.2341/08-118-L

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Arregui M, Giner L, Ferrari M, Mercadé M (2015) Colour stability of self-adhesive flowable composites before and after storage in water. Key Eng Mater 631:143–150. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.631.143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Alshali RZ, Salim NA, Satterthwaite JD, Silikas N (2015) Long-term sorption and solubility of bulk-fill and conventional resin-composites in water and artificial saliva. J Dent 43:1511–1518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2015.10.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Heintze SD, Zimmerli B (2011) Relevance of in vitro tests of adhesive and composite dental materials, a review in 3 parts. Part 1: approval requirements and standardized testing of composite materials according to ISO specifications. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 121:804–816

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Gonçalves L, Jaime Filho D, Guimarães JG, Poskus LT, Silva EM (2008) Solubility, salivary sorption and degree of conversion of dimethacrylate based polymeric matrixes. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 85:320–325. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.30949

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Sokolowski G, Szczesio A, Bociong K, Kaluzinska K, Lapinska B, Sokolowski J, Domarecka M, Lukomska- Szymanska M (2018) Dental resin cements – the influence of water sorption on contraction stress changes and hydroscopic expansion. Materials (Basel) 11:973. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma11060973

  30. Bagheri R, Mese A, Burrow MF, Tyas MJ (2010) Comparison of the effect of storage media on shear punch strength of resin luting cements. J Dent 38:820–827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2010.06.014

  31. Prado V, Santos K, Fontenele R, Soares J, Vale G (2020) Effect of over the counter mouthwashes with and without alcohol on sorption and solubility of bulk fill resins. J Clin Exp Dent 12:e1150–e1156. https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.57234

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Valizadeh S, Asiaie Z, Kiomarsi N, Kharazifard MJ (2020) Color stability of self-adhering composite resins in different solutions. Dent Med Probl 57:31–38. https://doi.org/10.17219/dmp/114099

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Guler S, Unal M (2018) The evaluation of color and surface roughness changes in resin based restorative materials with different contents after waiting in various liquids: an SEM and AFM study. Microsc Res Tech 81:1422–1433. https://doi.org/10.1002/jemt.23104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Bagheri R, Burrow MF, Tyas M (2005) Influence of food-simulating solutions and surface finish on susceptibility to staining of aesthetic restorative materials. J Dent 33:389–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2004.10.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Salgado VE, Rego GF, Schneider LF, Moraes RR, Cavalcante LM (2018) Does translucency influence cure efficiency and color stability of resin-based composites? Dent Mater 34:957–966. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2018.03.019

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Gonçalves F, Campos LMP, Rodrigues-Júnior EC, Costa FV, Marques PA, Francci CE, Braga RR, Boaro LCC (2018) A comparative study of bulk-fill composites: degree of conversion, post-gel shrinkage and cytotoxicity. Braz Oral Res 8(32):e17. https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. De Oliveira NG, de Silveira MT, da Silva LP, Barros KMA, Costa LM, Soares ML, Carvalho MV (2021) Morphological analysis and immunohistochemical expression in restoration with self-adhesive resin: a randomized split-mouth design-controlled study. J Clin Exp Dent 13:e927-934. https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.58413

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dental School, University of Pernambuco (FOP/UPE), Avenida Professor Luís Freire, 700, Cidade Universitária, Recife, PE, 50740-540, Brazil

    Natália Gomes de Oliveira, Luís Felipe Espíndola-Castro, Gabriela Queiroz de Melo Monteiro & Marianne de Vasconcelos Carvalho

  2. Dental School, University of Pernambuco (Campus Arcoverde), Estrada Para Sítio Deserto, Arcoverde, PE, 1940, Brazil

    Julliana Carvalho Rocha

  3. Biochemistry Department, Federal University of Pernambuco, Avenida Professor Moraes Rego, 1235, Cidade Universitária, Recife, PE, Brazil

    Amanda Pinheiro de Barros Albuquerque & Moacyr Jesus Barreto de Melo Rêgo

Authors
  1. Natália Gomes de Oliveira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luís Felipe Espíndola-Castro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Julliana Carvalho Rocha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Amanda Pinheiro de Barros Albuquerque
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Moacyr Jesus Barreto de Melo Rêgo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Gabriela Queiroz de Melo Monteiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Marianne de Vasconcelos Carvalho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Natália Gomes de Oliveira.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

Not applicable

Informed consent

Not applicable

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

de Oliveira, N.G., Espíndola-Castro, L.F., Rocha, J.C. et al. Influence of the self-adhering strategy on microhardness, sorption, solubility, color stability, and cytotoxicity compared to bulk-fill and conventional resin composites. Clin Oral Invest 26, 6663–6670 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04624-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04624-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation