Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017:2017:7346317.
doi: 10.1155/2017/7346317. Epub 2017 Jun 29.

A Deep Morphological Characterization and Comparison of Different Dental Restorative Materials

R Condò  1 , L Cerroni  1 , G Pasquantonio  1 , M Mancini  1 , A Pecora  2 , A Convertino  2 , V Mussi  3 , A Rinaldi  4 , L Maiolo  2
Affiliations

A Deep Morphological Characterization and Comparison of Different Dental Restorative Materials

R Condò et al. Biomed Res Int. 2017.

Abstract

Giomer is a relatively new class of restorative material with aesthetics, handling and physical properties of composite resins, and benefits of glass ionomers: high radiopacity, antiplaque effect, fluoride release, and recharge. To verify the superior properties of Giomers, in this study, a deep morphological characterization has been performed with an in vitro comparative study among a Giomer (Beautifil® II by Shofu Dental Corporation, Osaka, Japan), a Compomer (Dyract Extra by Dentsply, Caulk, Germany), glass ionomer cement (Ketac fil plus by 3M ESPE), and a composite resin (Tetric Evoceram by Ivoclar). In particular, mechanical and optical properties and ageing effects have been compared to investigate materials similarities and differences. Indentation tests, UV-Visible spectroscopy, Raman spectroscopy, and weight loss after storage in saliva or sugary drink have been carried out to analyze materials behavior in real conditions. The results confirm the high quality of Giomer material and indicate possible improvements in their usage.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
(a) Imprint left for Ketac. (b) Imprint left for Dyract. (c) Imprint left for Tetric. (d) Imprint left for Beautifil II.
Figure 2
Figure 2
A graph reporting the hardness of the different materials. Prof 2 is a reference while the others are Ketac (prof 1), Tetric (prof 3), Dyract (prof 4), and Beautifil II® (prof 5), respectively.
Figure 3
Figure 3
The UV-Vis spectra of the samples.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Raman spectra of the four tested materials. The curves have been stacked for clarity.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Typical optical images obtained on Beautifil II with a 50x objective. (a) Before contamination; (b) after contamination, front side; (c) after contamination, back side.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Typical Raman spectra collected on the Beautifil II after contamination. (a) Front side; (b) back side. In both cases the differently colored curves correspond to accumulated measurements taken at some representative points of the grids visible in Figures 5(b) and 5(c).
Figure 7
Figure 7
Typical optical images obtained on the Dyract with a 50x objective. (a) Before contamination; (b) after contamination, front side; (c) after contamination, back side.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Typical Raman spectra collected on the Dyract after contamination. (a) Front side; (b) back side. In both cases the differently colored curves correspond to accumulated measurements taken at some representative points of the grids visible in Figures 7(b) and 7(c).
Figure 9
Figure 9
Typical optical images obtained on the Ketac with a 50x objective. (a) Before contamination; (b) after contamination, front side.
Figure 10
Figure 10
Typical Raman spectra collected on the Ketac after contamination. (a) Front side; (b) back side. In both cases the differently colored curves correspond to accumulated measurements taken at some representative points on the sample surface.
Figure 11
Figure 11
Typical optical images obtained on the Tetric with a 50x objective. (a) Before contamination; (b) after contamination, front side; (c) after contamination, back side.
Figure 12
Figure 12
Typical Raman spectra collected on the Tetric after contamination. (a) Front side; (b) back side. In both cases the differently colored curves correspond to accumulated measurements taken at some representative points of the grids visible in Figures 11(b) and 11(c).
Figure 13
Figure 13
Analysis of the surface of Beautifil II after contamination with sugar-drink. (a) Optical image. (b) Raman spectra collected in different points.
Figure 14
Figure 14
Optical images taken on the sample before (a) and after (b) the collection of a single spectrum centered on a “brown grain.”
Figure 15
Figure 15
Analysis of the surface of Dyract after contamination with sugar-drink. (a) Optical image. (b) Raman spectra collected in different points.
Figure 16
Figure 16
Analysis of the surface of Ketac after contamination with sugar-drink. (a) Optical image. (b) Raman spectra collected in different points. The spectrum of the clean surface (green curve) has been added for comparison.
Figure 17
Figure 17
Analysis of the surface of Tetric after contamination with sugar-drink. (a) Optical image. (b) Raman spectra collected in different points. The spectrum of the clean surface (green curve) has been added for comparison.
Figure 18
Figure 18
No weight decrease has been observed in the four materials in exam.
Figure 19
Figure 19
Changes in weight after ageing in the sugary drink.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Tay F. R., Pashley E. L., Huang C., et al. The glass-ionomer phase in resin-based restorative materials. Journal of Dental Research. 2001;80(9):1808–1812. doi: 10.1177/00220345010800090701. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Yap A. U. J., Tham S. Y., Zhu L. Y., Lee H. K. Short-term fluoride release from various aesthetic restorative materials. Operative Dentistry. 2002;27(3):259–265. - PubMed
    1. Bogra P., Arora V., Giomer A new hybrid aesthetic restorative material. Journal of Conservative Dentistry. 2002;5:149–155.
    1. Griffin J. D. Unique characteristics of the giomer restorative system. Inside Dentistry. 2014;10(3):1–2.
    1. Alsayed E. Z., Hariri I., Sadr A., et al. Optical coherence tomography for evaluation of enamel and protective coatings. Dental Materials Journal. 2015;34(1):98–107. doi: 10.4012/dmj.2014-215. - DOI - PubMed

Substances

LinkOut - more resources