Purpose: This study compared the effect of water sorption on the extent of marginal gap reduction in two resin-modified glass-ionomer cements (RMGICs), two giomers, two compomers, and two resin composites over a twelve-week storage period. Materials and Methods: Artificial gaps were created in 160 borosilicate glass cylinders. One-half of the internal surface of each cylinder was blocked out with wax and the other half was sandblasted. The bonding surface was further treated with 4% hydrofluoric acid, rinsed, and then coated with silane. After removal of the wax, one coat of dentin adhesive was applied to the silane-treated surface of the cylinder, briefly air dried and light cured. Eight light-cured restorative materials were placed incrementally: Vitremer (V), Fuji II LC (FJ), Beautifil (B), Reactmer Paste (R), Compoglass F (C), F2000 (F), Filtek Z250 (Z), and Tetric-Ceram (T). For each material, ten specimens were stored in deionized water (W), and ten (control) in nonaqueous silicone fluid (0) at 37°C. The dimension of the same maximum gap created in each specimen was repeatedly measured at 0, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 weeks. Results: R-W exhibited extensive hygroscopic expansion that resulted in cracking of 40% of glass cylinders after the 2nd week and 70% after the 4th week. One-way ANOVA of the other seven water groups showed significant differences (p < 0.001) among gap widths measured at different time intervals in V-W, FJ-W, C-W, F-W. Both RMGICs had the most significant gap reduction during the first week (p < 0.001). Both compomers exhibited delayed water-sorption characteristics, with more significant gap reduction observed in C-W. B-W was similar to the two resin composites Z-W and T-W and exhibited the least gap reduction. After the first week, there were no significant differences in the percentage reduction in marginal gaps for any of the groups (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Marginal gap reduction that results from water sorption is more extensive and rapid in RMG-ICs, followed by compomers, whereas composites are relatively stable. Reactmer Paste exhibits rapid and extensive expansion and should probably be avoided in tooth preparations that involve thin unsupported enamel.
|Original language||English (US)|
|Number of pages||11|
|Journal||Journal of Adhesive Dentistry|
|State||Published - Mar 1 2002|
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Oral Surgery