Staining susceptibility and the effect of different stain removal techniques on the optical properties of injectable composite resins.

IF 3 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Frontiers in oral health Pub Date : 2025-02-28 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.3389/froh.2025.1556155
Nancy Soliman Farghal, Fadia Awadalkreem, Shahistha Parveen Dasnadi, Shatha Habush, Nur Ali Hatab, Asmaa Harhash
{"title":"Staining susceptibility and the effect of different stain removal techniques on the optical properties of injectable composite resins.","authors":"Nancy Soliman Farghal, Fadia Awadalkreem, Shahistha Parveen Dasnadi, Shatha Habush, Nur Ali Hatab, Asmaa Harhash","doi":"10.3389/froh.2025.1556155","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The injectable composite resin technique using highly filled flowable composite for anterior restorations is relatively new. This study aims to detect the staining susceptibility and the effect of polishing and bleaching agents and their combination on the stain removal and surface gloss of the injectable composite resins compared to sculptable nanofilled composite.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Eighty-four disc-shaped specimens were prepared from two injectable composite resins: Beautifil Flow Plus X (BFP) and G-ænial Universal Injectable (GUI) and one sculptable nanofilled composite; Filtek™ Z350XT Universal Restorative (FUR), immersed in an instant coffee solution for 12 days. The specimens from each material were divided into four groups (<i>n</i> = 7) according to the stain-removal method: Group 1 (control): no stain removal treatment. Group 2: Polished with Super-Snap Buff Polisher and Direct DiaPaste for 60 s. Group 3: Bleached with Opalescence Boost 40% for one hour (3 rounds/20 min each). Group 4: bleached and polished. A Spectrophotometer recorded the color parameter initially (T<sub>0</sub>), after staining (T<sub>1</sub>) and after stain removal methods (T<sub>2</sub>) and color change (ΔE<sub>00</sub>) was calculated. Gloss (GU) was recorded initially and after stain removal methods using a glossmeter. Surface morphology was examined with Scanning Electron Microscopy. The data was analyzed using One and Two-way ANOVA and Tukey's HSD <i>post hoc</i> test using SPSS software at a 5% significance level.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All tested materials showed clinically unacceptable staining susceptibility after coffee immersion and stain removing methods (ΔE<sub>00</sub> >1.8), with FUR exhibiting the highest change (26.2 ± 2.6). In-office bleaching and combined bleaching/polishing significantly reduced color change for FUR (<i>P</i> < 0.05), while all stain removal methods was equally effective for BPF and GUI (<i>P</i> > 0.05). Surface gloss remained unchanged with the highest values after staining and bleaching for all materials (52.8 ± 11.2-49.7 ± 9.4, <i>P</i> > 0.05) but significantly decreased after polishing alone or combined with bleaching (31.6 ± 5.7-15.4 ± 1.5, <i>P</i> < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Injectable composites exhibited lower staining susceptibility than the sculptable nanofilled composite. No stain-removing method restored the color for all composites to the clinically acceptable threshold. In-office bleaching with Opalescence Boost 40% effectively maintained optimal surface gloss, while polishing alone or after bleaching is not recommended due to its negative impact on gloss.</p>","PeriodicalId":94016,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in oral health","volume":"6 ","pages":"1556155"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11908588/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in oral health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/froh.2025.1556155","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The injectable composite resin technique using highly filled flowable composite for anterior restorations is relatively new. This study aims to detect the staining susceptibility and the effect of polishing and bleaching agents and their combination on the stain removal and surface gloss of the injectable composite resins compared to sculptable nanofilled composite.

Methods: Eighty-four disc-shaped specimens were prepared from two injectable composite resins: Beautifil Flow Plus X (BFP) and G-ænial Universal Injectable (GUI) and one sculptable nanofilled composite; Filtek™ Z350XT Universal Restorative (FUR), immersed in an instant coffee solution for 12 days. The specimens from each material were divided into four groups (n = 7) according to the stain-removal method: Group 1 (control): no stain removal treatment. Group 2: Polished with Super-Snap Buff Polisher and Direct DiaPaste for 60 s. Group 3: Bleached with Opalescence Boost 40% for one hour (3 rounds/20 min each). Group 4: bleached and polished. A Spectrophotometer recorded the color parameter initially (T0), after staining (T1) and after stain removal methods (T2) and color change (ΔE00) was calculated. Gloss (GU) was recorded initially and after stain removal methods using a glossmeter. Surface morphology was examined with Scanning Electron Microscopy. The data was analyzed using One and Two-way ANOVA and Tukey's HSD post hoc test using SPSS software at a 5% significance level.

Results: All tested materials showed clinically unacceptable staining susceptibility after coffee immersion and stain removing methods (ΔE00 >1.8), with FUR exhibiting the highest change (26.2 ± 2.6). In-office bleaching and combined bleaching/polishing significantly reduced color change for FUR (P < 0.05), while all stain removal methods was equally effective for BPF and GUI (P > 0.05). Surface gloss remained unchanged with the highest values after staining and bleaching for all materials (52.8 ± 11.2-49.7 ± 9.4, P > 0.05) but significantly decreased after polishing alone or combined with bleaching (31.6 ± 5.7-15.4 ± 1.5, P < 0.05).

Conclusion: Injectable composites exhibited lower staining susceptibility than the sculptable nanofilled composite. No stain-removing method restored the color for all composites to the clinically acceptable threshold. In-office bleaching with Opalescence Boost 40% effectively maintained optimal surface gloss, while polishing alone or after bleaching is not recommended due to its negative impact on gloss.

简介使用高填充流动复合材料进行前牙修复的可注射复合树脂技术相对较新。本研究旨在检测可注射复合树脂与可雕刻纳米填充复合材料相比的易染色性以及抛光剂和漂白剂及其组合对去污和表面光泽的影响:方法:用两种可注射复合树脂制备了84个圆盘状试样:Beautifil Flow Plus X (BFP) 和 G-ænial Universal Injectable (GUI) 以及一种可雕刻纳米填充复合材料 Filtek™ Z350XT Universal Restorative (FUR),在速溶咖啡溶液中浸泡 12 天。每种材料的试样按去污方法分为四组(n = 7):第 1 组(对照组):无去污处理。第 2 组:使用 Super-Snap Buff 抛光器和 Direct DiaPaste 抛光 60 秒。第 3 组:使用 Opalescence Boost 40% 漂白剂漂白 1 小时(3 轮/每轮 20 分钟)。第 4 组:漂白和抛光。用分光光度计记录最初(T0)、染色后(T1)和去污后(T2)的颜色参数,并计算颜色变化(ΔE00)。使用光泽度计记录最初和去污后的光泽度(GU)。使用扫描电子显微镜检查表面形态。在 5%的显著性水平下,使用 SPSS 软件的单向和双向方差分析以及 Tukey's HSD 后验法对数据进行分析:结果:所有测试材料在经过咖啡浸泡和去污方法后都显示出临床上不可接受的易染色性(ΔE00 >1.8),其中FUR的变化最大(26.2 ± 2.6)。办公室漂白和联合漂白/抛光可显著减少 FUR 的颜色变化(P P > 0.05)。所有材料的表面光泽度都保持不变,染色和漂白后的光泽度值最高(52.8 ± 11.2-49.7 ± 9.4,P > 0.05),但单独抛光或抛光与漂白结合后的光泽度明显降低(31.6 ± 5.7-15.4 ± 1.5,P 结论:所有材料的表面光泽度都保持不变,染色和漂白后的光泽度值最高(52.8 ± 11.2-49.7 ± 9.4,P > 0.05):与可雕刻纳米填充复合材料相比,注射式复合材料的染色敏感性更低。没有一种去污方法能使所有复合材料的颜色恢复到临床可接受的阈值。使用 Opalescence Boost 40% 进行诊室漂白能有效保持最佳的表面光泽度,而单独抛光或漂白后抛光会对光泽度产生负面影响,因此不建议使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信