![Titre: In Vitro Assessment of Vertise [TM] Flow from Kerr](https://cdn.openpublishing.com/thumbnail/products/202393/large.webp)
Introduction:
Flowable composites are of low viscosity and a modification of small particle-filled and hybrid composites. They have reduced filler load and modified resin monomers which provide a consistency that allows the material to flow readily. They have better adaptability to cavity walls thus preventing microleakge. However their lower filler loading results in greater polymerisation shrinkage and reduced mechanical properties compared to other hybrid composites.
Aims and Objectives:
The aim of this study was to compare the physical and mechanical properties of a new low viscosity commercial flowable composite (VertiseTM Flow) with other flowable composites (Grandio Flow and Premise Flowable) currently available on the market. Water absorption, depth of cure, degree of conversion (using FTIR) and polymerisation exotherm were compared.
Material and Methods:
Water absorption and desorption was measured in distilled water and artificial saliva gravimetrically, where the uptake and loss was noted at set time intervals. Degree of conversion of double bonds of uncured and cured samples of composites was measured using the FTIR. The depth of cure was measured by an adapted ISO 4049 stated method. Finally polymerisation exotherm was measured using the K-type thermocouple of samples cured for 20 seconds.
Results:
The results showed increased uptake of water in distilled water and artificial saliva for VF, compared to the PF and GF. The diffusion coefficients were generally similar for desorption and absorption. The solubility % in distilled water was highest for VF in artificial saliva. All materials showed weight gain after desorption. Finally the depth of cure of VF was lower and polymerisation exotherm was higher than PF and GF. Lastly degree of conversion was found to be almost similar for all the three flowable composites.
Conclusions:
The presence of HEMA in VF resulted in a higher water uptake and polymerisation exotherm and lower depth of cure than the other flowable composite tested.
Table of Contents
1. CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
2. CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 DENTAL COMPOSITES
2.2.1 COMPOSITION AND STRUCTURE
2.2.2 RESIN/ORGANIC MATRIX
2.2.3 FILLER
2.2.4 COUPLING AGENT
2.2.5 INTIATORS AND ACCELERATORS
2.2.6 CLASSIFICATION OF COMPOSITES
2.2.7 PACKABLE COMPOSITES
2.2.8 POLYMERIZATION REACTION
2.3 PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF DENTAL COMPOSITES
2.3.1 Working and setting time:
2.3.2 Polymerization Shrinkage
2.3.3 Thermal Properties
2.3.4 Water Sorption.
2.3.5 Solubility
2.3.6 Colour and Colour Stability
2.4 MECHANICAL PROPERTIES
2.4.1 Strength and Modulus
2.4.2 Hardness
2.4.3 Bond Strength and Dental Substrates (Ceramics, Alloys, etc….)
2.5 CLINICAL PROPERTIES
2.5.1 Depth of cure for light-cured composites
2.5.2 Radiopacity
2.5.3 Wear Rates
2.5.4 Biocompatibility
2.6 DENTAL ADHESIVES
2.7 FLOWABLE COMPOSITES
2.7.1 PROPERTIES OF FLOWABLE COMPOSITES
2.7.2 VERTISE FLOW
2.7.3 GRANDIO FLOW
2.7.4 PREMISE FLOWABLE
2.7.5 HYDROXYETHYL METHACRYLATE (HEMA) Figure 2.6
3. CHAPTER 3: AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
3.1 AIM
3.2 OBJECTIVES
4. CHAPTER 4: MATERIAL AND METHODS
4.1 COMPOSITE MATERIALS
4.2 IMMERSION SOLUTIONS
4.3 METHODOLOGY FOR WATER ABSORPTION AND DESORPTION
4.3.1 SAMPLE PREPARATION
4.3.2 ABSORPTION
4.3.3 LONG-TERM IMMERSION
4.3.4 DESORPTION
4.3.5 DIFFUSION THEORY AND FICK’S LAW
4.3.6 CALCULATING DIFFUSION COEEFICIENT
4.3.7 CALCULATING SOLUBILITY
4.3.8 CALCULATING REAL UPTAKE
4.4 COMPOSITE RESIN DEGREE OF CONVERSION
4.4.1 METHODOLOGY FOR COMPOSITE DEGREE OF CONVERSION
4.5 POLYMERIZATION EXOTHERM
4.5.1 METHODOLOGY FOR EXOTHERM MEAUREMENTS
4.6 DEPTH OF CURE OF LIGHT CURED COMPOSITES
4.6.1 METHODOLOGY FOR DEPTH OF CURE
4.7 STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY
5. CHAPTER 5: RESULTS
5.1WATER UPTAKE OF COMPOSITES
5.1.1 Vertise TM Flow
5.1.2 AVERAGE OF VERTISE TM FLOW, GRANDIO FLOW and PREMISE FLOWABLE IN DISTILLED WATER AND ARTIFICAL SALIVA
5.2 DESORPTION OF COMPOSITES
5.2.1 THREE MONTHS CONTINOUS UPTAKE OF FLOWABLE COMPOSITE (VF, GF & PF) IN ARTIFICIAL SALIVA
5.3 DIFFUSION COEEFICIENT FOR ABSORPTION AND DESORPTION AND SOLUBILTY %
5.4 DEGREE OF CONVERSION
5.5 POLYMERISATION EXOTHERM
5.6 DEPTH OF CURE
6. CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION
6.1: IMMERSION SOLUTIONS
6.2: WATER ABSORPTION AND DESORPTION PROFILE AFTER IMMERSION IN DISTILLED WATER AND ARTIFICIAL SALIVA
6.3: SOLUBILITY OF THE COMPOSITES
6.4 DIFFUSION COEEFICIENT OF THE COMPOSITES.
6.5: DEGREE OF CONVERSION
6.6: POLYMERISATION EXOTHERM
6.7: DEPTH OF CURE
7. CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSIONS
Research Objectives and Focus
This thesis aims to assess the physical and mechanical characteristics of the self-adhesive flowable composite Vertise™ Flow by comparing it against two conventional market alternatives, Grandio Flow and Premise Flowable, through the analysis of water interaction and polymerization behavior.
- Comparative analysis of water absorption and desorption profiles in distilled water and artificial saliva.
- Evaluation of solubility and diffusion coefficients to understand material degradation.
- Assessment of the degree of conversion on the bottom surfaces of cured composite samples.
- Measurement of the polymerization exotherm profile to determine potential thermal risks to pulp.
- Investigation of the depth of cure for each composite material using standardized LED light sources.
Excerpt from the Thesis
2.2.2 RESIN/ORGANIC MATRIX
Primarily, in a fluid monomer form, the resin is the chemically active element, which gets converted to a rigid polymer, by a free radical polymerization reaction. Due to its ability to convert from a plastic to rigid form it is favorable to be used for restorations (van Noort, 2007). These fluid resins (monomers) are viscous liquids and their viscosity is reduced, to a useful clinical level, by adding diluent monomers (Powers & Sakaguchi, 2006)
The most common monomers used in dental composites are dimethacrylates amongst which 2, 2-bis [4(2-hydroxy-3 methacryloyloxy-propyloxy)-phenyl) 1] propane (Bis-GMA) (Figure 2.1), which is derived from reacting bis-phenol-A and glycidylmethacrylate; it is referred to as Bowens-resin, after its inventor. The other monomer which is used in a number of composites, in place of Bis-GMA, is Urethane Dimethacrylate (UDMA figure 2.2) (van Noort. 2007)
Both Bis-GMA and UDMA contain carbon-carbon double bonds at each chain of their chemical structures, which undergo addition polymerization (Powers and Sakaguchi, 2006). Due to their high molecular weight, even a small addition of filler results in a composite with a viscosity that is inappropriate for clinical use. (van Noort, 2007) Bis-GMA and UDMA (Figure 2.2) are highly viscous fluids (Patel, 2012) due to the hydrogen bonding interactions between hydroxyl group and monomer molecules,(Chen, 2010).Thus low viscosity diluents such as tri-ethylene, glycol dimethacrylate (Figure 2.3) are added by the manufacturers (Powers and Sakaguchi, 2006).
Summary of Chapters
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION: Provides an overview of restorative dentistry and the evolution of flowable composites, specifically introducing Vertise™ Flow and its dual adhesion mechanism.
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW: Examines the composition, physical properties, and clinical behavior of dental composites, with a specific focus on the role of HEMA and light-curing technology.
CHAPTER 3: AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Defines the research goal to compare Vertise™ Flow with standard flowable composites regarding water interaction, solubility, and curing performance.
CHAPTER 4: MATERIAL AND METHODS: Details the experimental procedures, including sample preparation, immersion tests in distilled water and artificial saliva, and spectroscopic methods for analysis.
CHAPTER 5: RESULTS: Presents the findings regarding water uptake, desorption, degree of conversion, polymerization exotherm, and depth of cure for the tested composites.
CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION: Interprets the experimental results, linking the presence of HEMA to increased water absorption and polymerization exotherms compared to non-HEMA materials.
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSIONS: Summarizes that while Vertise™ Flow offers specific adhesive benefits, its higher water uptake and polymerization exotherm represent critical factors for clinical application.
Keywords
Flowable composites, Vertise™ Flow, HEMA, Water absorption, Solubility, Polymerization exotherm, Depth of cure, FTIR, Dental materials, Adhesive dentistry, Resin matrix, Diffusion coefficient, Biocompatibility, Microleakage, Composite restoration.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this research thesis?
The thesis evaluates the physical and mechanical properties of the self-adhesive flowable composite Vertise™ Flow (VF) compared to conventional products like Grandio Flow and Premise Flowable.
What are the central thematic fields?
The work covers dental composite chemistry, water sorption behavior, polymerization kinetics, and clinical performance metrics like depth of cure and exotherm measurements.
What is the primary research objective?
The primary aim is to analyze how the inclusion of hydrophilic monomers like HEMA in Vertise™ Flow influences its interaction with external media compared to non-HEMA flowable composites.
Which scientific methods were utilized?
The study employed gravimetric analysis for water absorption/desorption, FTIR spectroscopy for evaluating the degree of conversion, and K-type thermocouples for measuring polymerization exotherms.
What topics does the main body cover?
The main body investigates the composition of resin matrices, the physics of water sorption, the mechanics of polymerization, and provides a comparative experimental analysis of three commercial flowable composites.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include flowable composites, water absorption, HEMA, degree of conversion, polymerization exotherm, and dental restoration longevity.
How does the presence of HEMA affect Vertise™ Flow?
The presence of HEMA, a hydrophilic hydrogel, leads to significantly higher water uptake and a higher polymerization exotherm in Vertise™ Flow compared to the other tested composites.
Is Vertise™ Flow recommended for deep cavity restorations?
Due to its high polymerization exotherm, the author does not recommend using Vertise™ Flow in close proximity to the tooth pulp to avoid potential thermal trauma.
Did the results show any significant difference in the degree of conversion?
No, the study found no statistically significant difference in the degree of conversion between the bottom surfaces of the three tested flowable composite materials.
- Citation du texte
- Zeeshan Qamar (Auteur), 2012, In Vitro Assessment of Vertise [TM] Flow from Kerr, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/202393
