Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Clinical Oral Investigations
Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations 5/2019

01-05-2019 | Original Article

Mechanical and hydrolytic degradation of an Ormocer®-based Bis-GMA-free resin composite

Authors: Elena Klauer, Renan Belli, Anselm Petschelt, Ulrich Lohbauer

Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Issue 5/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

The aim of the study was to evaluate the mechanical stability of bisphenol A-glycidyl methacrylate (Bis-GMA) and Ormocer-based resin composites before and after water absorption and to examine water saturation.

Material and methods

Disc-shaped specimens of the Bis-GMA (Grandio SO, Voco) and the Ormocer-based (Admira Fusion, Voco) dental resin composites were produced, stored in water, and weighed after pre-determined times to measure the absorbed water. Bend bars were produced and stored for 24 h in dry conditions as well as in distilled water for 14 days or 60 days at 37 °C. The initial flexural strength (FS) under quasi-static loading and flexural fatigue strength (FFS) under cyclic loading were determined under 4-point bending. Fracture toughness (KIc) of both composites was measured using the single-edge-V-notch-beam (SEVNB) technique after the same storage conditions under 3-point bending.

Results

Within the first 14 days, storage conditions did not affect the initial FS of Grandio SO, while a significant drop in initial FS was observed for Admira Fusion after 2 weeks in water and most of the water was absorbed within this time. FFS for the Bis-GMA composite was not reduced before 2 months in water, whereas for the Ormocer®-based composite, there has been a significant decrease in strength after cyclic fatigue already at 2 weeks of water storage. KIc of Admira Fusion decreased significantly after both storage periods, while KIc of Grandio SO decreased only significantly after 2 weeks of water storage.

Conclusion

All mechanical properties of the Bis-GMA composite were superior to those of the Ormocer®-based material, except water sorption.

Clinical significance

Water storage seems to have a much more pronounced effect on the mechanical properties of Ormocer®-based dental composites in comparison to Bis-GMA-based composites.
Literature
1.
2.
3.
European Food Safety Authority , Parma, Italy (2015) Scientific opinion on the risks to public health related to the presence of bisphenol a (BPA) in foodstuffs. EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids EFSA J 13:3978
4.
EYK F, Ewoldsen NO, St. Germain HA, Marx DB, Miaw C-L, Siew C, Chou H-N, Gruninger SE, Meyer DM (2000) Pharmacokinetics of bisphenol A released from a dental sealant. J Am Dent Assoc 131:51–58CrossRef
5.
Joskow R, Barr DB, Barr JR, Calafat AM, Needham LL, Rubin C (2006) Exposure to bisphenol A from bis-glycidyl dimethacrylate–based dental sealants. J Am Dent Assoc 137:353–362CrossRefPubMed
6.
Kang Y-G, Kim J-Y, Kim J, Won P-J, Nam J-H (2011) Release of bisphenol A from resin composite used to bond orthodontic lingual retainers. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 140:779–789CrossRef
7.
Sasaki N, Okuda K, Kato T, Kakishima H, Okuma H, Abe K, Tachino H, Tuchida K, Kubono K (2005) Salivary bisphenol-A levels detected by ELISA after restoration with composite resin. J Mater Sci Mater Med 16:297–300CrossRefPubMed
8.
Zimmerman-Downs JM, Shuman D, Stull SC, Ratzlaff RE (2010) Bisphenol A blood and saliva levels prior to and after dental sealant placement in adults. J Dent Hyg 84:145–150PubMed
9.
Schmidt H (1984) Organically modified silicates by the sol-gel process. MRS Proc 32
10.
Moszner N, Gianasmidis A, Klapdohr S, Fischer UK, Rheinberger V (2008) Sol-gel materials 2. Light-curing dental composites based on ormocers of cross-linking alkoxysilane methacrylates and further nano-components. Dent Mater 24:851–856CrossRefPubMed
11.
Ilie N, Hickel R (2009) Investigations on mechanical behaviour of dental composites. Clin Oral Invest 13:427–438CrossRef
12.
Moszner N, Salz U (2001) New developments of polymeric dental composites. Prog Polym Sci 26:535–576CrossRef
13.
Polydorou O, Konig A, Hellwig E, Kummerer K (2009) Long-term release of monomers from modern dental-composite materials. Eur J Oral Sci 117:68–75CrossRefPubMed
14.
Al-Hiyasat AS, Darmani H, Milhem MM (2005) Cytotoxicity evaluation of dental resin composites and their flowable derivatives. Clin Oral Invest 9:21–25CrossRef
15.
Pick B, Pelka M, Belli R, Braga RR, Lohbauer U (2011) Tailoring of physical properties in highly filled experimental nanohybrid resin composites. Dent Mater 27:664–669CrossRefPubMed
16.
Manhart J, Kunzelmann K-H, Chen HY, Hickel R (2000) Mechanical properties of new composite restorative materials. J Biomed Mater Res 53:353–361CrossRefPubMed
17.
Yap AU, Soh MS (2004) Post-gel polymerization contraction of “low shrinkage” composite restoratives. Oper Dent 29:182–187PubMed
18.
Bottenberg P, Alaerts M, Keulemans F (2007) A prospective randomised clinical trial of one bis-GMA-based and two ormocer-based composite restorative systems in class II cavities: three-year results. J Dent 35:163–171CrossRefPubMed
19.
Bottenberg P, Jacquet W, Alaerts M, Keulemans F (2009) A prospective randomized clinical trial of one bis-GMA-based and two ormocer-based composite restorative systems in class II cavities: five-year results. J Dent 37:198–203CrossRefPubMed
20.
Belli R, Geinzer E, Muschweck A, Petschelt A, Lohbauer U (2014) Mechanical fatigue degradation of ceramics versus resin composites for dental restorations. Dent Mater 30:424–432CrossRefPubMed
21.
Llena C, Fernández S, Forner L (2017) Color stability of nanohybrid resin-based composites, ormocers and compomers. Clin Oral Invest 21:1071–1077CrossRef
22.
Poggio C, Matteo C, Beltrami R, Mirando M, Wassim J (2016) Color stability of esthetic restorative materials: a spectrophotometric analysis. Acta Biomater Odontol Scand 2:95–101CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Quinn JB, Quinn GD (2010) A practical and systematic review of Weibull statistics for reporting strengths of dental materials. Dent Mater 26:135–147CrossRefPubMed
24.
25.
EN843-5 (1997) Mechanical testing of monolithic ceramics at room temperature. Part 5: statistical treatment
26.
Belli R, Petschelt A, Lohbauer U (2014) Are linear elastic material properties relevant predictors of the cyclic fatigue resistance of dental resin composites? Dent Mater 30:381–391CrossRefPubMed
27.
Munz D, Fett T (2001) Ceramics: mechanical properties, failure behaviour, materials selection. Springer, Berlin
28.
Andrzejewska E (2001) Photopolymerization kinetics of multifunctional monomers. Prog Polym Sci 26:605–665CrossRef
29.
Haas K-H, Wolter H (1999) Synthesis, properties and applications of inorganic–organic copolymers (ORMOCER®s). Cur Op Solid State Mater Sci 4:571–580CrossRef
30.
Gregor L, Krejci I, Di Bella E, Feilzer AJ, Ardu S (2016) Silorane, ormocer, methacrylate and compomer long-term staining susceptibility using DeltaE and DeltaE 00 colour-difference formulas. Odontology 104:305–309CrossRefPubMed
31.
Lohbauer U, Rahiotis C, Krämer N, Petschelt A, Eliades G (2005) The effect of different light-curing units on fatigue behavior and degree of conversion of a resin composite. Dent Mater 21:608–615CrossRefPubMed
32.
Htang A, Ohsawa M, Matsumoto H (1995) Fatigue resistance of composite restorations: effect of filler content. Dent Mater 11:7–13CrossRefPubMed
33.
Lohbauer U, Frankenberger R, Kramer N, Petschelt A (2006) Strength and fatigue performance versus filler fraction of different types of direct dental restoratives. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 76:114–120CrossRefPubMed
34.
Ilie N, Hickel R, Valceanu AS, Huth KC (2012) Fracture toughness of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Invest 16:489–498CrossRef
35.
Randolph LD, Palin WM, Leloup G, Leprince JG (2016) Filler characteristics of modern dental resin composites and their influence on physico-mechanical properties. Dent Mater 32:1586–1599CrossRefPubMed
36.
Ferracane JL, Marker VA (1992) Solvent degradation and reduced fracture toughness in aged composites. J Dent Res 71:13–19CrossRefPubMed
37.
Ornaghi BP, Meier MM, Lohbauer U, Braga RR (2014) Fracture toughness and cyclic fatigue resistance of resin composites with different filler size distributions. Dent Mater 30:742–751CrossRefPubMed
38.
39.
Lohbauer U, Belli R, Ferracane JL (2013) Factors involved in mechanical fatigue degradation of dental resin composites. J Dent Res 92:584–591CrossRefPubMed
40.
Watanabe H, Khera SC, Vargas MA, Qian F (2008) Fracture toughness comparison of six resin composites. Dent Mater 24:418–425CrossRefPubMed
41.
Im YW, Lee SH, Lee JW, Lee HH (2016) Static and cyclic flexural strength of various dental composite resins. Dent Mater 32:e37–e38CrossRef
42.
Garcia-Godoy F, Frankenberger R, Lohbauer U, Feilzer AJ, Krämer N (2012) Fatigue behavior of dental resin composites: flexural fatigue in vitro versus 6 years in vivo. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 100B:903–910CrossRef
43.
Kramer N, Garcia-Godoy F, Frankenberger R (2005) Evaluation of resin composite materials. Part II: in vivo investigations. Am J Dent 18:75–81PubMed
44.
Braem MJ, Davidson CL, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G (1994) In vitro flexural fatigue limits of dental composites. J Biomed Mater Res 28:1397–1402CrossRefPubMed
45.
Lohbauer U, Frankenberger R, Kramer N, Petschelt A (2003) Time-dependent strength and fatigue resistance of dental direct restorative materials. J Mater Sci Mater Med 14:1047–1053CrossRefPubMed
46.
Braden M, Causton EE, Clarke RL (1976) Diffusion of water in composite filling materials. J Dent Res 55:730–732CrossRefPubMed
47.
Braden M, Clarke RL (1984) Water absorption characteristics of dental microfine composite filling materials. I. Proprietary materials. Biomaterials 5:369–372CrossRefPubMed
48.
Mortier E, Gerdolle DA, Dahoun A, Panighi MM (2005) Influence of initial water content on the subsequent water sorption and solubility behavior in restorative polymers. Am J Dent 18:177–181PubMed
49.
Yiu CKY, King NM, Pashley DH, Suh BI, Carvalho RM, Carrilho MRO, Tay FR (2004) Effect of resin hydrophilicity and water storage on resin strength. Biomaterials 25:5789–5796CrossRefPubMed
50.
Mohsen NM, Craig RG, Filisko FE (2001) The effects of moisture on the dielectric relaxation of urethane dimethacrylate polymer and composites. J Oral Rehabil 28:376–392CrossRefPubMed
51.
Ferracane JL (2006) Is the wear of dental composites still a clinical concern? Is there still a need for in vitro wear simulating devices? Dent Mater 22:689–692CrossRefPubMed
52.
Sideridou ID, Karabela MM, Vouvoudi EC (2011) Physical properties of current dental nanohybrid and nanofill light-cured resin composites. Dent Mater 27:598–607CrossRefPubMed
53.
Wei Y-j, Silikas N, Zhang Z-t, Watts DC (2011) Diffusion and concurrent solubility of self-adhering and new resin-matrix composites during water sorption/desorption cycles. Dent Mater 27:197–205CrossRefPubMed
54.
Sideridou ID, Karabela MM, Bikiaris DN (2007) Aging studies of light cured dimethacrylate-based dental resins and a resin composite in water or ethanol/water. Dent Mater 23:1142–1149CrossRefPubMed
55.
Oysaed H, Ruyter IE (1986) Water sorption and filler characteristics of composites for use in posterior teeth. J Dent Res 65:1315–1318CrossRefPubMed
56.
Ruyter IE, Oysaed H (1987) Composites for use in posterior teeth: composition and conversion. J Biomed Mater Res 21:11–23CrossRefPubMed
57.
Ferracane JL (2006) Hygroscopic and hydrolytic effects in dental polymer networks. Dent Mater 22:211–222CrossRefPubMed
58.
Mohsen NM, Craig RG (1995) Hydrolytic stability of silanated zirconia-silica-urethane dimethacrylate composites. J Oral Rehabil 22:213–220CrossRefPubMed
59.
Ortengren U, Wellendorf H, Karlsson S, Ruyter IE (2001) Water sorption and solubility of dental composites and identification of monomers released in an aqueous environment. J Oral Rehabil 28:1106–1115CrossRefPubMed
60.
Cavalcante LM, Schneider LFJ, Hammad M, Watts DC, Silikas N (2012) Degradation resistance of ormocer- and dimethacrylate-based matrices with different filler contents. J Dent 40:86–90CrossRefPubMed
61.
Sideridou I (2003) Study of water sorption, solubility and modulus of elasticity of light-cured dimethacrylate-based dental resins. Biomaterials 24:655–665CrossRefPubMed
62.
Janda R, Roulet JF, Latta M, Rüttermann S (2007) Water sorption and solubility of contemporary resin-based filling materials. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 82B:545–551CrossRef
63.
Lekatou A, Faidi SE, Ghidaoui D, Lyon SB, Newman RC (1997) Effect of water and its activity on transport properties of glass/epoxy particulate composites. Compos A: Appl Sci Manuf 28:223–236CrossRef
64.
Antonucci JM, Dickens SH, Fowler BO, Xu HHK, McDonough WG (2005) Chemistry of silanes: interfaces in dental polymers and composites. J Res Nat Inst Stand Technol 110:541–558CrossRef
65.
Calais JG, Soderholm KJ (1988) Influence of filler type and water exposure on flexural strength of experimental composite resins. J Dent Res 67:836–840CrossRefPubMed
66.
Michalske TA, Freimann SW (1983) A molecular mechanism for stress corrosion in vitreous silica. J Am Ceram Soc 66:284–288CrossRef
67.
68.
Tanaka K, Taira M, Shintani H, Wakasa K, Yamaki M (1991) Residual monomers (TEGDMA and Bis-GMA) of a set visible-light-cured dental composite resin when immersed in water. J Oral Rehabil 18:353–362CrossRefPubMed
69.
70.
Schneider LF, Cavalcante LM, Silikas N, Watts DC (2011) Degradation resistance of silorane, experimental ormocer and dimethacrylate resin-based dental composites. J Oral Sci 53:413–419CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Mechanical and hydrolytic degradation of an Ormocer®-based Bis-GMA-free resin composite
Authors
Elena Klauer
Renan Belli
Anselm Petschelt
Ulrich Lohbauer
Publication date
01-05-2019
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Clinical Oral Investigations / Issue 5/2019
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Electronic ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2651-3

Other articles of this Issue 5/2019

Clinical Oral Investigations 5/2019 Go to the issue

Original Article

Clinical evaluation of a low-shrinkage resin composite in endodontically treated premolars: 3-year follow-up

Original Article

Overaugmentation to compensate for postextraction ridge atrophy using a putty-type porcine bone substitute material with recombinant bone morphogenetic protein-2: 4 weeks of healing in a canine model

Original Article

Impact of endodontic post material on longitudinal changes in interproximal bone level: a randomized controlled pilot trial

Original Article

Bone-anchored maxillary protraction in patients with unilateral complete cleft lip and palate and Class III malocclusion

Review

The influence of apical extent of root canal obturation on endodontic therapy outcome: a systematic review

Original Article

Postoperative morbidity of free flaps in head and neck cancer reconstruction: a report regarding 215 cases