An in Vitro Evaluation of the Solubility, Water Sorption, Hygroscope Expansion and Hardness of Resin and Glass-Ionomer Cements
Document Type : Original Articles
Authors
1 Postgraduate Student, Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran.
2 Department of Operative Dentistry, Dental Research Institute, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
10.48305/v0i0.1672
Abstract
Introduction: The long-term success of indirect restorations depends on the clinical behavior of luting cements. In the oral environment, properties such as water sorption and solubility negatively affect the cements’ clinical performance over time, jeopardizing the restoration’s longevity. This study aimed to compare a self-adhesive resin luting cement with conventional resin-based and glass-ionomer luting materials in terms of water sorption (WS), solubility (WSB), hygroscopic expansion (HE), and hardness (H).
Materials & Methods: In this experimental study, 15 discs (6×2 mm) were prepared for each group from a self-adhesive luting cement (Bifix SE), a conventional dual-cured resin cement (Bifix Q), a glass-ionomer luting cement (Meron), and a resin-modified glass-ionomer (Meron Plus) using a silicone mold. The specimens were placed on an oversaturated sodium sulfate solution in a sealed chamber. Water sorption was evaluated after three weeks. Water solubility was calculated using the formula WSB = (M1-M3/V). Hygroscopic expansion was calculated using the formula He = v1-v2 in which the volume values were determined by pycnometry; Then, Vickers hardness test determined the hardness of the material before and after water sorption. The data were analyzed with ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests using SPSS 22 (α = 0.05).
Results: Water sorption was significantly different between the four materials at different time intervals (p value < 0.001). Water solubility and hygroscopic expansion were significantly different between the four groups (p value < 0.001). Changes in hardness were not significantly different between the groups (p value = 0.099).
Conclusion: Both glass-ionomer cements were more prone to WS and WSB than resin cements. Bifix SE exhibited no water solubility; however, it was the most susceptible to hygroscopic expansion. Bifix QM exhibited the best behavior in terms of water sorption, solubility, and expansion due to water sorption. There was no statistically significant difference in hardness between all the materials before and after water sorption.
Key words: Expansion, Glass-ionomer cement, Hardness, Resin cement, Solubility, Water sorption.
Materials & Methods: In this experimental study, 15 discs (6×2 mm) were prepared for each group from a self-adhesive luting cement (Bifix SE), a conventional dual-cured resin cement (Bifix Q), a glass-ionomer luting cement (Meron), and a resin-modified glass-ionomer (Meron Plus) using a silicone mold. The specimens were placed on an oversaturated sodium sulfate solution in a sealed chamber. Water sorption was evaluated after three weeks. Water solubility was calculated using the formula WSB = (M1-M3/V). Hygroscopic expansion was calculated using the formula He = v1-v2 in which the volume values were determined by pycnometry; Then, Vickers hardness test determined the hardness of the material before and after water sorption. The data were analyzed with ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests using SPSS 22 (α = 0.05).
Results: Water sorption was significantly different between the four materials at different time intervals (p value < 0.001). Water solubility and hygroscopic expansion were significantly different between the four groups (p value < 0.001). Changes in hardness were not significantly different between the groups (p value = 0.099).
Conclusion: Both glass-ionomer cements were more prone to WS and WSB than resin cements. Bifix SE exhibited no water solubility; however, it was the most susceptible to hygroscopic expansion. Bifix QM exhibited the best behavior in terms of water sorption, solubility, and expansion due to water sorption. There was no statistically significant difference in hardness between all the materials before and after water sorption.
Key words: Expansion, Glass-ionomer cement, Hardness, Resin cement, Solubility, Water sorption.
1. Eisenburger M, Addy M, Rossbach A. Acidic solubility of luting cements. J Dent 2003; 31(2): 137-42.
2. Radovic I, Monticelli F, Goracci C, Vulicevic ZR, Ferrari M. Self-adhesive resin cements: a literature review. J Adhes Dent 2008; 10(4): 251-8.
3. Smith DC. A new dental cement. Br Dent J 1968; 124(9): 381-4.
4. Wilson AD, Kent BE. The glass ionomer cement: a new translucent dental Filling material. Journal of Chemical Technology & Biotechnology 1971; 21: 313-20.
5. Antonucci JM, McKinney JE, Stansbury JW. Formulation and evaluation of resin modified glass ionomer cements. Trans Soc Biomater, 1987: 13:225.
6. Mathis RS, Ferracane JL. Properties of a glass-ionomer/resin-composite hybrid material. Dent Mater 1989; 5(5): 355-8.
7. Wilson AD. Resin-modified glass-ionomer cements. Int J Prosthodont 1990; 3(5): 425-9.
8. Mitra SB. Adhesion to dentin and physical properties of a light-cured glass-ionomer liner/base. J Dent Res 1991; 70(10): 72-4.
9. Ritter AV, Boushell LW, Walter R. Sturdevant's art and science of operative dentistry. 17th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2019. p. 140, 174-82, 196-205, 310-12.
10. Sakaguchi RL, Ferracane JL, Powers JM. Craig's restorative dental materials. 14th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2019. p. 46-7, 484-504.
11. Gerdolle DA, Mortier E, Jacquot B, Panighi MM. Water sorption and water solubility of current luting cements: An in vitro study. Quintessence Int 2008; 39(3): 107-14.
12. Meşe A, Burrow MF, Tyas MJ. Sorption and solubility of luting cements in different solutions. Dent Material J 2008; 27(5): 702-9.
13. Archegas LR, Caldas DB, Rached RN, Vieira S, Souza EM. Sorptionand solubility of composites cured with quartz-tungsten halogen and light emitting diode light-curing units. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008; 9(2): 73-80.
14. Zhang Y, Xu J. Effect of immersion in various media on the sorption, solubility, elution of unreacted monomers, and flexural properties of two model dental composite compositions. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2008; 19(6): 2477-83.
15. Petropoulou A, Vrochari AD, Hellwig E, Stampf S, Polydorou O. Water sorption and water solubility of self-etching and self-adhesive resin cements. J Prosthet Dent 2015; 114(5): 674-9.
16. Piwowarczyk A, Lauer HC. Mechanical properties of luting cements after water storage. Oper Dent 2003; 28(5): 535-42.
17. Behr M, Rosentritt M, Loher H, Kolbeck C, Trempler C, Stemplinger B, et al. Changes of cement properties caused by mixing errors: the therapeutic range of different cement types. Dent Mater 2008; 24(9): 1187-93.
18. Han L, Okamoto A, Fukushima M, Okiji T. Evaluation of physical properties and surface degradation of self-adhesive resin cements. Dent Mater J 2007; 26(6): 906-14.
19. Xu X, Meng X. [Influence of long-term water storage on the physical and chemical properties of four different dental cements]. Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi 2014; 49(11): 677-81. [In Chinese].
20. Chaves LP, Graciano FM, BimJúnior O, Pedreira AP. water interaction with dental luting cements by means of sorption and solubility. Braz Dent Sci 2012; 15(4): 29-35.
21. Nicholson JW, Czarnecka B. Kinetic studies of water uptake and loss in glass-ionomer cements. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2008; 19(4): 1723-7.
22. Heshmat H, BanavaS, Zarandi P, Faraji F. In-vitro evaluation of water sorption and solubility of G-Cem and fujicem in water and acid. J Islam Dent Assoc Iran 2013; 25(4): 249-54. [In Persian].
23. Chutinan S, Platt JA, Cochran MA, Moore BK. Volumetric dimensional change of six direct core materials. Dent Mater 2004; 20(4): 345-51.
24. Malacarne J, Carvalho RM, de Goes MF, Svizero N, Pashley DH, Tay FR, et al. Water sorption /solubility of dental adhesive resins. Dent Mater 2006; 22(10): 973-80.
25. de Munck J, van Landuyt K, Peumans M, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Braem M, et al. A Critical review of the durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: methods and results. J Dent Res 2005; 84(2): 118-32.
26. Huang C, Kei LH, Wei SH, Cheung GS, Tay FR, Pashley DH. The influence of hygroscopic expansion of resin-based restorative materials on artificial gap reduction. J Adhes Dent 2002; 4(1): 61-71.
27. Fabianelli A, Goracci C, Bertelli E, Monticelli F, Grandn S, Ferrari M. In vitro evaluation of wall-to-wall adaptation of a self-adhesive resin cement used for luting gold and ceramic inlays. J Adhes Dent 2005; 7(1): 33-40.
28. Kurdi R, Sarkis E, Sarkis N. A comparative study of solubility between resin cement and self-adhesive resin cement. International Arab Journal Dentistry 2013; 4(2): 74-6.
29. Vrochari AD, Eliades G, Hellwig E, Wrbas KT. Water sorption and solubility of four self-etching، self-adhesive resin luting agents. J Adhes Dent 2010; 12(1): 39-43.
30. Janda R, Roulet JF, Latta M, Rüttermann S. Water sorption and solubility of contemporary resin-based filling materials. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2007; 82(2): 545-51.
31. Nalçaci A, Ulusoy N, Atakol O. Time-based elution of TEGDMA and BisGMA from resin composite cured with LED, QTH and high-intensity QTH lights. Oper Dent 2006; 31(2): 197-203.
32. Asmussen E, Peutzfeldt A. Influence of selected components on crosslink density in polymer structures. Eur J Oral Sci 2001; 109(4): 282-5.
33. Mendonça LM, Pegoraro LF, Lanza MD, Pegoraro TA, Carvalho RM. Effects of coronal substrates and water storage on the microhardness of a resin cement used for luting ceramic crowns. J Appl Oral Sci 2014; 22(4): 287-93.
)