Stoma Edu J. 2024;11(1-2):
pISSN 2360-2406; eISSN 2502-0285
www.stomaeduj.com
51-57
Original Articles
STUDY REGARDING THE INFLUENCE OF VARIOUS
MODELING AGENTS ON SURFACE MICROHARDNESS
ROUGHNESS OF NANOHYBRID COMPOSITE RESINS
Simona Stoleriu
1a*
, Gianina Iovan
1b
, Irina Nica
1c
, Galina Pancu
1d
, Andrei Georgescu
1e
,
Alice Murariu
2f*
, Sorin Andrian
1g
, Ionuț Tărăboanță
1h
1
Department of Odontology, Periodontology and Fixed Prosthodontics, “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Iasi, Romania
2
Department of Surgery, Faculty of Dental Medicine, “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Iasi, Romania
a
DMD, PhD, Associate Professor; e-mail: simona.stoleriu@umfiasi.ro; ORCID-iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5427-6027
b
DMD, PhD, Professor; e-mail: gianina.iovan@umfiasi.ro; ORCID-iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7255-4406
c
DMD, PhD, Lecturer; e-mail: irina.nica@umfiasi.ro; ORCID-iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1189-0785
d
DMD, PhD, Lecturer; e-mail: galina.pancu@umfiasi.ro; ORCID-iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5427-6027
e
DMD, PhD, Professor assistant; e-mail: andrei.georgescu@umfiasi.ro; ORCID-iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7407-844X
f
DMD, PhD, Professor; e-mail: alice.murariu@umfiasi.ro; ORCID-iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4526- 3878
g
DMD, PhD, Professor; e-mail: sorin.andrian@umfiasi.ro; ORCID-iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9271-6123
h
DMD, PhD, Professor assistant; e-mail: ionut.taraboanta@umfiasi.ro; ORCID-iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5452-916X
Objective The purpose of this study was to investigate the eects of dierent modeling agents on surface
hardness and on surface roughness of some conventional nanohybrid composite resins.
Metodology Samples of two nanohybrid composite resins: Essentia - group I (n=40) and Neo Spectra ST HV -
group II (n=40) were included in this study. Three modeling agents were applied on top of the last composite
layer before light curing: Modeling Liquid - subgroup 2 (n=10), 7
th
generation of bonding system-G-Bond
- subgroup 3 (n=10), and a universal bonding system G-Premio Bond - subgroup 4 (n=10). In subgroup 1
(n=10) no modeling agent was applied. Half of the samples in subgroups 1, 2, 3 and 4 from each group were
subjected to surface hardness determination using a digital electronic hardness tester (Vickers Hardness
Number (VHN) mean value was reported) and half of them to surface roughness evaluation by Atomic Force
Microscopy (AFM) analysis (AFM analysis) (root mean square parameter (Rq) was reported).
Results In group I and II statistically signicant results were obtained when comparing the surface
microhardness in subgroups 2, 3 and 4 with subgroup 1, the microhardness in subgroups 2 and 3 and in
subgroup 2 and 4 (Wilcoxon test, p<0.05). In both groups, no statistically signicant dierences were obtained
when comparing the mean Rq values among all subgroups (ANOVA and post hoc Bonferroni tests, p<0.05).
(p=.1520). The dierence on the left side was insignicant (0.81, p=0.9933). The total volume removed did
not dier signicantly between the two methods (p=0.88851) or on the side (p=0.7582).
Conclusion All evaluated modeling agents decreased the surface microhardness of the tested nanohybrid
composite resins. None of the modeling agents inuenced the surface roughness of the composites.
ABSTRACT
Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM); Composite Resins; Microhardness; Modeling Agents; Roughness.
1. INTRODUCTION
Due to technological progress in material science
composite resins have become the most commonly
used direct restorative materials both on anterior
and posterior area of the arches [1]. The main
advantages are represented by their use in mini-
mally invasive techniques, esthetic aspect, good
mechanical properties, good handling properties
(some composite resins having easy transportation,
insertion and modeling characteristics) [2]. Rebuil-
ding tooth anatomy is a mandatory step when
restoring a tooth and due to the viscosity of resin
monomers sometimes it is dicult to shape the
composite in order to t the natural anatomical
aspect of the tooth.
To prevent the adhesiveness of the composite to
the instruments used for transportation, insertion or
modeling, dierent resin monomers or substances
were used to lubricate the tools or the brushes. In
time practitioners started to use alcohol, acetone
and isopropyl acid to control the handling and
modeling characteristics of the composites,
but they were considered inappropriate for the
purpose. Alcohol used as a modeling agent can
have detrimental eects on the resin matrix and can
decrease the mechanical properties of composites
[3]. Some producers introduced wetting agents
KEYWORDS
OPEN ACCESS This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.
Peer-Reviewed Article
Citation: Stoleriu S, Iovan G, Nica I, Pancu G, Georgescu A, Murariu A, Andrian S, Tărăboană I. Study regarding the inuence of various modeling agents
on surface microhardness and on surface roughness of nanohybrid composite resins. Stoma Edu J. 2024;11(1-2):51-57.
Received: March 21, 2024; Revised: April 21, 2024; Accepted: May 02, 2024; Published: May 15, 2024.
*Corresponding author: Simona Stoleriu; Address: Universităii Street No.16, Iași, Romania; Tel.: +40-745-106-066; e-mail:
simona.stoleriu@e-mail.
com
; Alice Murariu; Address: Universităii Street No.16, Iași, Romania; Tel.: +40-745-106-066; e-mail:
alice.murariu@umfiasi.ro
.
Copyright: © 2022 the Editorial Council for the Stomatology Edu Journal.
https://doi.org/10.25241/stomaeduj.2024.11(1-2).art.4
ORTHODONTICS
51
Stoma Edu J. 2024;11(1-2):
pISSN 2360-2406; eISSN 2502-0285
www.stomaeduj.com
51-57
Original Articles
(modeling liquids) for better handling. The lubricants
can be applied in the layering process of composite
application to minimize adhesiveness by wiping
the instrument with modeling agents [4,5]. This
approach facilitated the improvement of handling
and insertion, but also simplied the modeling
process of composite resins and improved the
surface characteristics by smoothening the surface
[6].
Most of the modeling agents are resin-based
materials that include little or no ller [7]. Modeling
liquids generally contain methacrylates such
as urethane dimethacrylate (UDMA), bisphenol
A-glycidyl methacrylate (Bis-GMA), and triethylene
glycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA). They are also
composed of hydrophobic non-solvated resins and
they have low or no organic llers [8]. Chemical,
structural and mechanical alterations have been
reported in composite materials after being modeled
with the instrument lubricated with modeling agent
even when the chemical composition of the agent
was similar to that of the composite resin [9]. As
an alternative to modeling liquids dental clinicians
have used bonding systems to improve composite
handling properties, even if this use is not included in
the manufacturers' specications. Some studies have
pointed that these techniques can negatively aect
the physical properties and surface characteristics
of composite resins [10-12]. Signicantly higher
decrease of composite surface micro-hardness was
reported when a non-solvated adhesive (the 3rd
step of etch and rinse bonding system) [10] or the
self-etch primer (the 1st liquid of the 2-step self-
etch bonding system) [11] were used as lubricants.
On the contrary, other studies concluded that some
modeling agents can preserve the surface hardness
[13]. Only a few articles reported data regarding the
inuence of modeling agents on composite surface
roughness and these data are controversial. Some
of the studies pointed that the modeling liquid,
the universal bonding agent or the 2nd step of a
self-etch bonding system have no eect on the
surface roughness of the investigated composite
resins [10,11]. On the other hand, in other studies
the application of a modeling liquid determined an
increased surface roughness of the composite resins
[13].
The purpose of this study was to investigate the
eects of various agents (modeling substances or
adhesive systems) on the surface hardness and
surface roughness of some conventional nanohybrid
composite resins.
The null hypotheses were:
1. the use of dierent modeling agents has no
eect on the surface microhardness of nanohybrid
composite resins;
2. the use of dierent modeling agents has no eect
on the surface roughness of nanohybrid composite
resins.
2. METHODS AND MATERIALS
Study design is presented in Fig. 1.roughly in the
canine location (Fig. 1).
2.1. Sample preparation
Two nanohybrid composite resins were included in
this study: Essentia - group I (GC Corp., Tokyo, Japan)
(light enamel shade) and Neo Spectra ST HV- group
II (Dentsly Sirona, Konstanz, Germany) (A1 shade).
Forty samples of each material were obtained by
condensing the resin into the plastic cylinders 6 mm
in diameter and 4 mm in height. The molds were
placed on a glass plate in contact with a transparent
matrix to ensure a smooth surface of the sample. Two
layers of each material were inserted, each layer being
individually cured for 40 seconds using a LED lamp
(Woodpecker Med. Instrument, Guilin, China) with
the intensity of 1.200 mW/cm.
Before light-curing the last layer, three different
modeling agents were applied on the surface of 30
samples from each group using a brush. Modeling
Liquid (GC Corp., Tokyo, Japan) was applied on 10
samples from each group (subgroup 2), G-Bond
bonding system (GC Corp., Tokyo, Japan) on 10
samples (subgroup 3) and universal bonding system
G-Premio Bond (GC Corp., Tokyo, Japan) were applied
in self-etch technique on 10 samples (subgroup 4).
Dierent brushes were used for each modeling agent
and for a specic type of agent the brush was replaced
by a new one after 10 applications. The same quantity
of the liquid (one drop) was placed in a plastic box, the
brush was submersed one time in the liquid and the
excess was removed by touching a paper towel with
the brush. For the rest of 10 samples in each group
no modeling agent or bonding system was applied
before light-curing the last layer of composite resin
(subgroup 1).
Details related to the chemical composition of the two
composite resins and modeling agents are presented
in Table 1.
Figure 1. Study design.
Stoleriu S, et al.
52
Stoma Edu J. 2024;11(1-2):
pISSN 2360-2406; eISSN 2502-0285
www.stomaeduj.com
51-57
Original Articles
The eect of modeling agents on nanohybrid composite resins surface properties
The samples were then removed from the plastic
mold, the lower surfaces were marked and the upper
surfaces of the samples were nished with medium,
ne and extra ne abrasive discs (Sof-LexTM, 3M
ESPE) under water cooling, for 20 seconds for each
grit. The samples were then submersed for 24
hours in a container with distilled water. Half of the
samples in subgroups 1, 2, 3 and 4 from each group
were subsequently subjected to surface hardness
determination and half of them to surface roughness
evaluation.
2.2. Determination of surface microhardness
On the unmarked surfaces of the samples Vickers
hardness was determined using a digital electronic
hardness tester (Micro-Vickers Hardness System CV-
400 DMTM, CV Instruments Namicon). CV-400 mico/
macrohardness tester is a solid and accurate hardness
tester used on an industrial and laboratory scale. It
is equipped with an automatic Vickers indentation
head and a special indentation measurement and
evaluation software. In this study a load of 200 g with a
10-second dwell time was applied on Vickers hardness
head, according to the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) 6507/ASTM E 384 standards.
For each sample 2 indentations were made, the
distance between the indentations being of 1 mm.
The surface hardness was determined by measuring
the indentation diagonal and was expressed as Vickers
Hardness Number (VHN). The nal surface hardness of
a sample was calculated as the average value of the
two determinations.
2.2. Determination of surface microroughness
Half of the samples in each group were analyzed for
surface roughness using atomic force microscopy
(SOLVER PRO-M scanning probe microscope, NTMDT,
Russia). The measurements were performed in air
environment and in static force operating mode.
2D and 3D images were obtained on sample area
of 20 × 20 µm. On 3D images the surface roughness
was reported as the root mean square roughness
parameter (Rq). Two hundred fty-six linear scans
were performed on each section and the nal Rq
value of the sample was reported as the mean value
of all scans.
2.3. Statistical analyses
The data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics
28.0.1 program (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). The eects
of modeling agents on hardness were analyzed using
the Wilcoxon test (at p<0.05 signicance level) and
the eects on surface roughness using ANOVA and
post hoc Bonferroni tests (at p<0.05 signicance level).
3. RESULTS
The mean values and standard deviation of surface
microhardness (VHN) in groups and subgroups are
presented in Table 2.
Subgroup 1 Subgroup 2 Subgroup 3 Subgroup 4
Group I 68.04 ± 0.45 63.58 ± 0.77 54.25 ± 1.34* 56.02 ± 0.48*
Group II 66.05 ± 0.67 58.23 ± 0.70 44.93 ± 0.99* 46.05 ± 0.60*
* represent no statistical differences among the subgroups in group (p>0.05)
In group I and II statistically signicant results were
obtained when comparing the surface microhardness
values of the samples in subgroups 2, 3 and 4 with
subgroup 1 of the samples in subgroups 2 and
subgroup 3 and of subgroup 2 with subgroup 4 (Table
2).
3.2. Surface roughness evaluation
3D and 2D aspects of some samples in group I
subgroups 1-4 and group II subgroups 1-4 are
presented in Figs. 2, 3, respectively.
Table 1. Chemical composition of the tested materials.
Material type Composition The manufacturing company
Essentia Nanohybrid composite resin Matrix: UDMA, Bis-MEPP, Bis-EMA, Bis-GMA, TEGDMA
Filler: prepolymerized silicon particles, barium glass (81%
by weight and 65% by volume)
GC Corp., Tokyo, Japan
Neo Spectra ST HV Nanohybrid composite resin Matrix: Methacrylate modified polysiloxane (organically
modified ceramic), Bis-EMA, TEGDMA
Filler: prepolymerized spherical particles (15 µm) and 0.6
µm barium glass and 0.6 µm ytterbium fluoride particles,
silicon dioxide nanoparticles (10 nm), (77–79% by weight
and 59–61% by volume)
Dentsly Sirona, Konstanz, Germany
Modeling Liquid Modeling agent UDMA, 2-HEMA, TEGDME GC Corp., To-kyo, Japan
G-Bond adhesive system (7
th
generation)
Phosphoric acid ester monomers, 4-MET monomer,
nanoparticles
GC Corp., To-kyo, Japan
G-Premio Bond Universal adhe-sive system 4-MET, MDP and MDTP GC Corp., To-kyo, Japan
UDMA- urethane dimethacrylate; Bis-MEPP- bisphenol-A ethoxylate dimethacrylate; Bis-EMA- ethoxylated bisphenol-A dimethacrylate;
Bis-GMA-bisphenolglycidyl methacrylate; TEGDMA- triethylene glycol dimethacrylate; UDMA- urethane dimethacrylate; 2-HEMA- 2 hydroxyethyl
methacrylate, TEGDME- trimethylene glycol dimethyl ether; 4-MET- 4-[2-(methacryloyloxy)ethoxycarbonyl]phathalic acid;MDP- 10-Methacryloyloxydecyl
dihydrogen phosphate; MDTP- 4,4',4"- [(methanetriyltris (benzene-4,1-diyl)) tris (oxy)] triphthalonitrile.
Table 2. Mean VHN values and standard deviations of surface
microhardness (VHN) in groups and subgroups.
53
Stoma Edu J. 2024;11(1-2):
pISSN 2360-2406; eISSN 2502-0285
www.stomaeduj.com
51-57
Original Articles
Stoleriu S, et al.
Group I 3D aspect of the sample 2D aspect of the sample
Subgroup 1
Subgroup 2
Subgroup 3
Subgroup 4
Figure 2. 3D and 2D aspect of Essentia samples when using no modeling agent (subgroup 1), Modeling Liquid (subgroup 2), G-Bond (subgroup 3),
G-Premio Bond (subgroup 3)..
Group II 3D aspect of the sample 2D aspect of the sample
Subgroup 1
Subgroup 2
Subgroup 3
Subgroup 4
Figure 3. 3D and 2D aspect of NeoSpectra ST samples when using no modeling agent (subgroup 1), Modeling Liquid (subgroup 2), G-Bond (subgroup
3), G-Premio Bond (subgroup 3).
54
Stoma Edu J. 2024;11(1-2):
pISSN 2360-2406; eISSN 2502-0285
www.stomaeduj.com
The eect of modeling agents on nanohybrid composite resins surface properties
Original Articles
51-57
The mean Rq values and standard deviation in
subgroups 1-4 of groups I and II are presented in
table 3. In both groups, no statistically signicant
differences were obtained when comparing the
surface roughness among subgroups 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Subgroup 1 Subgroup 2 Subgroup 3 Subgroup 4
Group I 0.051±0.003 0.067±0.002 0.055±0.003 0.064±0.003
Group II 0.052±0.002 0.064±0.003 0.057±0.004 0.065±0.002
4. DISCUSSION
The rst null hypothesis of the study was rejected,
all the agents used for modeling the composite resin
decreasing the composite surface hardness. This
might be determined by the ller content in the nal
composite layer after using modeling agents [7]. All
modeling agents have a low ller percentage, so their
application on the last composite layer lead to a resin-
rich layer formation on the surface [14]. As a result,
lower VHN values are obtained after modeling agent
application. Generally, this extern layer having high
resin content is removed by the nishing procedure.
Although all the samples in this study were nished,
VHN values were still lower in the groups where
modeling agents were used when comparing to the
control group (Table 2). Even if the external resin-reach
layer was removed by nishing, it seems that wetting
agents can diuse in the deeper layers of the material,
changing their chemical composition and hardness
[15]. Another explanation for decreasing the surface
hardness as a result of modeling agents application is
the presence of 2-HEMA molecule in the composition
of the Modeling Liquid, a hydrophilic monomer which
can cause water absorption due to a hydroxyl and
carbonyl group [16]. Therefore, as it was reported even
in previous studies, HEMA can reduce the hardness of
composite resin [17].
The 2021 study conducted by Ezgi T. Bayraktar
also focused on the eects of modeling agents on
mechanical properties of composites when using
modeling agents on composite top layer [8]. Their
study reported the reduction of surface microhardness
as a result of modeling agents application in the last
material layer, similar to the results of the present
study. Also, Tuncer et al. evaluated the eects of a
modeling agent (Modeling Resin, Bisco, IL, USA) on the
surface microhardness of dierent composite resins
and they reported decreased surface microhardness
when using a modeling agent for two of the tested
composite resin [7].
In our study the group in which the Modeling
Liquid was used recorded highest hardness value
when comparing to the 7th generation of adhesive
system and to the universal bonding system. That
aspect might be correlated to the presence of UDMA
molecule in the composition. This molecule consists
of two urethane bonds and a exible aliphatic core
and forms double hydrogen bonds [18]. It has been
reported that resins containing UDMA have superior
polymerization rates and a high degree of conversion
[18]. Consequently, the degree of conversion and
polymerization rate can aect the surface hardness
of the samples. However, Tuncer et al. pointed that
differences in microhardness between different
composites may not be attributed to the degree of
conversion [7]. Also Kutuk et al tested Modeling Liquid
and two universal adhesive agents (G-Premio Bond,
GC Corp.; OptiBond XTR, KavoKerr, Orange, CA, United
States) as modeling agents in combination with
nanohybrid composite resins [11]. The study found
the lowest microhardness values when OptiBond
XTR was used. Contradictory to the ndings of this
study, in our research the 7th generation of bonding
agent determined lower microhardness of the tested
materials when comparing to the Modeling Liquid
group and control group and the same eect as the
universal bonding resin.
The composite resins hardness is also determined
by the characteristics of filler particles and their
interaction with the polymers [19,20]. It was reported
that nanolled composite resins exhibit improved
hardness and abrasion resistance when comparing
to other categories of composite resins [21]. That was
the reason for including nanohybrid composites as
testing materials in our study. The low-viscosity agents
used to improve composites handling characteristics
act by reducing the surface tension [22], but also by
lling the defects in the material by diusing through
the pores resulted during layering procedure, making
the material more resistant to degradation [5,23]. The
nal layer of restorative material has a decisive eect
on aesthetics, color stability, and surface roughness
[24]. Smooth and well-polished surfaces decrease
plaque retention and consequently lower the risk
of secondary caries and staining. In our study, the
roughness values of both tested composite resins
were lower than the plaque accumulation threshold
of 20 µm [25]. Adequate finished and polished
surfaces are mandatory to achieve long-lasting
clinical restorations. Composites having nanoparticles
present high polishability when using tools containing
Al2O3 or diamond particles [26,27]. In our study, the
specimens were polished using Sof-Lex aluminum
oxide discs to achieve optimal surface smoothness.
Following the polishing procedure, in our study the
samples were submersed in distilled water for 24 hours
to remove unreacted monomers and to allow post-
polymerization process. It has been suggested that
some liquid agents can be used to achieve smooth
composite resin surface [28,29]. However, it has been
proved to be very dicult to obtain a regular surface
when using liquid resins [30]. All tested modeling
agents in the present study had no eect on surface
roughness of composite resins (Tab. 3), so the second
null hypotesis was accepted].
Table 3.
55
Stoma Edu J. 2024;11(1-2):
pISSN 2360-2406; eISSN 2502-0285
www.stomaeduj.com
Stoleriu S, et al.
Original Articles
51-57
5. CONCLUSION
Within the limitations of this study, all evaluated
modeling agents decreased the surface microhardness
of the tested nanohybrid composite resins. None of the
modeling agents inuenced the surface roughness
of the composites. Further clinical studies should be
performed for more accurate understanding of the
eects of modeling agents on the mechanical properties
and surface condition of composite resins.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
SS, GP, GI: concept; SS, IN, AM: protocol; SS, IT, AG: data gathering
and analysis; SS, GP: data interpretation; SA, GI: revising the
manuscript.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Authors declare that there is no conict of interests.
1. Rosa WL, Piva E, Silva AF. Bond strength of universal adhesives:
a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2015;43(7):765-
776. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2015.04.003.
Full text links CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar Scopus WoS
2. Nahsan FP, Mondelli RF, Franco EB, et al. Clinical strategies
for esthetic excellence in anterior tooth restorations: unders-
tanding color and composite resin selection. J Appl Oral Sci.
2012;20(2):151-156. doi: 10.1590/s1678-77572012000200005.
Full text links CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar Scopus WoS
3. Sneed WD, Draughn RA. Eect of alcohol on the strength of a
composite resin. Oper Dent. 1980;5(2):47-48.
PubMed Google Scholar Scopus WoS
4. Dunn WJ, Strong TC. Eect of alcohol and unlled resin in
the incremental buildup of resin composite. Quintessence Int.
2007;38(1):e20-26.
Full text links PubMed Google Scholar
5. Barcellos DC, Pucci CR, Torres CR, Goto EH, Inocencio AC.
Eects of resinous monomers used in restorative dental mode-
ling on the cohesive strength of composite resin. J Adhes Dent.
2008;10(5):351-354.
Full text links PubMed Google Scholar
6. Perdigăo J, Gomes G. Eect of instrument lubricant on the
cohesive strength of a hybrid resin composite. Quintessence Int.
2006;37(8):621-625.
Full text links CrossRef PubMed WoS
7. Tuncer S, Demirci M, Tiryaki M, Unlü N, Uysal Ö. The eect of
a modeling resin and thermocycling on the surface hardness,
roughness, and color of dierent resin composites. J Esthet Restor
Dent. 2013;25(6):404-419. doi: 10.1111/jerd.12063.
Full text links CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
8. Bayraktar ET, Atali PY, Korkut B, et al. Eect of modeling
resins on microhardness of resin composites. Eur J Dent. 2021
Jul;15(3):481-487. doi: 10.1055/s-0041-1725577.
Full text links CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
9. Ellakwa A, Cho N, Lee IB. The eect of resin matrix composition
on the polymerization shrinkage and rheological properties of
experimental dental composites. Dent Mater. 2007;23(10):1229-
1235. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2006.11.004.
Full text links CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar Scopus WoS
10. de Paula FC, Valentin Rde S, Borges BC, et al. Eect of
instrument lubricants on the surface degree of conversion and
crosslinking density of nanocomposites. J Esthet Restor Dent.
2016;28(2):85-91. doi: 10.1111/jerd.12182.
Full text links CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar Scopus WoS
11. Kutuk ZB, Erden E, Aksahin DL, Durak ZE, Dulda AC. Inuence
of modeling agents on the surface properties of an esthetic
nano-hybrid composite. Restor Dent Endod. 2020;45(2):e13. doi:
10.5395/rde.2020.45.e13.
Full text links CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
12. Pereira PL, Pereira R, Silva BG, et al. Eect of wetting
agent coverage on the surface properties of resin composite
submitted to brushing and staining cycles. J Clin Exp Dent.
2021;13(8):e795-e801. doi: 10.4317/jced.58311.
Full text links CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
13. Perea-Lowery L, Tolvanen M, Vallittu PK. Evaluation of the
eect of monomer systems on the softening of a composite
resin. Int J Prosthodont. 2019;32(1):101–103. doi: 10.11607/
ijp.5692.
Full text links CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar WoS
14. Nayyer M, Zahid S, Hassan SH, et al. Comparative abrasive
wear resistance and surface analysis of dental resin-based
materials. Eur J Dent. 2018;12(1):57-66. doi: 10.4103/ejd.
ejd_380_17.
Full text links CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
15. Koc-Vural U, Baltacioglu I, Altinci P. Color stability of bulk-ll
and incremental-ll resin-based composites polished with alumi-
num-oxide impregnated disks. Restor Dent Endod. 2017;42(2):118-
124. doi: 10.5395/rde.2017.42.2.118.
Full text links CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
16. Pratap B, Gupta RK, Bhardwaj B, Nag M. Resin based restora-
tive dental materials: characteristics and future perspectives. Jpn
Dent Sci Rev. 2019;55(1):126-138. doi: 10.1016/j.jdsr.2019.09.004.
Full text links CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar Scopus WoS
17. Chou KF, Han CC, Lee S. Water transport in 2-hydroxyethyl
methacrylate copolymer irradiated by γ rays in air and related
phenomena. J Polym Sci Pol Part B: Polym Phys. 2000;38(5):659–
671.
CrossRef Google Scholar Scopus WoS
18. Barszczewska-Rybarek IM. Structure-property relationships
in dimethacrylate networks based on Bis-GMA, UDMA and
TEGDMA. Dent Mater. 2009;25(9):1082-1089. doi: 10.1016/j.den-
tal.2009.01.106.
Full text links CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar Scopus WoS
19. Kundie F, Azhari CH, Muchtar A, et al. Eects of ller size on
the mechanical properties of polymer-lled dental composites: a
review of recent developments. J Physiol Sci. 2018;29(1):141-165.
Google Scholar Scopus WoS
20. Prentice LH, Tyas MJ, Burrow MF. The eect of ytterbium
uoride and barium sulphate nanoparticles on the reactivity and
strength of a glass-ionomer cement. Dent Mater. 2006;22(8):746-
751. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2005.11.001.
Full text links CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar Scopus WoS
21. Klapdohr S, Moszner N. New inorganic components for
dental lling composites. Monatsh Chem/Chemical Monthly.
2005;136(1):21–45. doi: 10.1007/s00706-004-0254-y
CrossRef Google Scholar Scopus WoS
22. Araujo FS, Barros MCR, Santana MLC, et al. Eects of adhesive
used as modeling liquid on the stability of the color and opacity
of composites. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2018;30(5):427-433. doi:
10.1111/jerd.12378.
Full text links CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar Scopus WoS
23. Münchow EA, Sedrez-Porto JA, Piva E, Pereira-Cenci T, Cenci
MS. Use of dental adhesives as modeler liquid of resin compo-
sites. Dent Mater. 2016 Apr;32(4):570-577. doi: 10.1016/j.den-
tal.2016.01.002.
Full text links CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar Scopus WoS
24. Liebermann A, Spintzyk S, Reymus M, Schweizer E, Stawar-
czyk B. Nine prophylactic polishing pastes: impact on discolo-
ration, gloss, and surface properties of a CAD/CAM resin com-
posite. Clin Oral Investig. 2019 Jan;23(1):327-335. doi: 10.1007/
s00784-018-2440-z.
Full text links CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar Scopus
25. Bollen CM, Papaioanno W, Van Eldere J, et al. The inuence
of abutment surface roughness on plaque accumulation and
peri-implant mucositis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1996;7(3):201-211.
doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1996.070302.x.
Full text links CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar Scopus WoS
26. Sahbaz C, Bahsi E, Ince B, Bakir EP, Cellik O. Eect of the die-
rent nishing and polishing procedures on the surface rough-
ness of three dierent posterior composite resins. Scanning.
2016;38(5):448-454. doi: 10.1002/sca.21295.
Full text links CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar Scopus WoS
27. Andrian S, Iovan G, Pancu G, et al. Study regarding the surface
state of composite resins after nishing and polishing using
dierent systems. Mater Plast. 2017;54(4):689-693.
CrossRef Google Scholar Scopus WoS
28. Perez Cdos R, Hirata RJ, da Silva AH, Sampaio EM, de Miranda
MS. Eect of a glaze/composite sealant on the 3-D surface rough-
ness of esthetic restorative materials. Oper Dent. 2009;34(6):674-
680. doi: 10.2341/08-014-L.
Full text links CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar Scopus
29. Lowe RA. Using BisCover surface sealant/polish on direct and
indirect composite and bisacrylic provisional restorations.
Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2004;25(5):400-401.
PubMed Google Scholar Scopus
30. Bertrand MF, Leforestier E, Muller M, Lupi-Pégurier L, Bolla M.
Eect of surface penetrating sealant on surface texture and micro-
hardness of composite resins. J Biomed Mater Res. 2000;53(6):658-
663. doi: 10.1002/1097-4636(2000)53:6<658:aid-jbm7>3.0.co;2-o.
Full text links CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar Scopus
REFERENCES
56
Stoma Edu J. 2024;11(1-2):
pISSN 2360-2406; eISSN 2502-0285
www.stomaeduj.com
Original Articles
51-57
The eect of modeling agents on nanohybrid composite resins surface properties
Questions
1. Different tools have been developed to improve the fit and the configuration of
composite resins:
qa. Titanium coated instruments;
qb. Aluminum coated instruments;
qc. Resin knives;
qd. Brushes.
2. Practitioners have used multiple lubricants in layering process of composite
application to minimize adhesiveness of the material to the instrument:
qa. Acetone;
qb. Glycerine;
qc. Modeling liquid;
qd. Bonding system.
3. The followings are true regarding the conclusions of the present study:
qa. Modeling liquid had no eect on surface hardness;
qb. The use of 7
th
generation of adhesive system increased surface roughness of composite resin;
qc. The use of universal bonding system had no eect on surface roughness of composite resin;
qd. Modeling liquid increased composite surface roughness.
4. Some studies have pointed that adhesive agent used on the extern layer of the
restoration may lead to:
qa. Changes of composite color;
qb. Changes of composite physical properties;
qc. Changes of composite chemical properties;
qd. Increased viscosity of the composite resin.
CV
Simona Stoleriu is an educationist, researcher, and specialist in cariology and operative dentistry. Since 2018 she is associate
professor on the Faculty of Dental Medicine, “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iaşi, Romania in 2018. She
received PhD in Medical Dentistry in 2009 and she became senior specialist in General Dentistry in 2006. The research activity
focused on early diagnosis of dental caries, non-operative and restorative treatment of caries lesion, diagnosis and treatment
of wear lesions, the behavior of restorative materials in oral environment, factors which can inuence the surface condition and
mechanical properties of direct restorative materials, and remineralization of dental hard tissues. She was also being invited as a
speaker on many national and international congresses and he received 10 awards for the scientic activity.
Simona STOLERIU
DMD, PhD, Associate Professor
Department of Odontology Periodontology and Fixed Prosthodontics
“Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy
Iasi, Romania
57