The aim of this study is to evaluate the microhardness, relative surface roughness, and elemental changes of resin‐based dental restorative materials (RDRMs) after gastric acid treatment. Five different RDRMs (Group 1 [Filtek Z550], Group 2 [Beautifil II], Group 3 [Vertise Flow], Group 4 [Dyract XP], Group 5 [Fuji II LC]) were used. Samples were formed by using plexiglass molds of 10 mm diameter and 2 mm thickness. A total of 50 samples (n = 10) for microhardness tests and a total of 15 samples (n = 3) for scanning electron microscopy (SEM)–energy dispersive X‐ray spectroscopy (EDX) analysis were prepared. All samples of each group were treated to gastric acid, simultaneously. A Vickers microhardness tester was used to evaluate the microhardness of the upper surfaces of each sample. SEM–EDX system was used for microstructure and elemental composition detection. The SEM–EDX, microhardness and relative surface roughness analysis were made prior to treatment in gastric acid for 14 days and analysis were repeated on the 14th day. As the difference in the microhardness values of RDRMs was compared, the time‐dependent variation in all RDRMs was found to be statistically significant. It was observed that a drastic decrease in microhardness values was in Beautifil II, Filtek Z550, Vertise Flow, Fuji II LC, and Dyract XP, respectively. Average decrease rate of microhardness values compared to the initial state can be listed from high to low as Beautifil II (%35.72), Vertise Flow (% 28.88), Fuji II LC (% 21.09), Dyract XP (%17.60), and Filtek Z550 (% 16.58). As a result, in in‐vitro conditions gastric acid decreased microhardness while increasing the relative surface roughness of RDRMs.

No abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study is to compare the biocompatibility of two different resin composites after polymerization under two different light sources in three different time periods. Materials and methods: 72 polyethylene tubes polymerized with 2 different resin composites and 2 different light sources (Elipar S10 and Valo ) [Group 1: Kalore Elipar S10 (KE), Group 2: Kalore Valo (KV), Group 3: Essentia Elipar S10 (EE), Group 4: Essentia Valo (EV)] were implanted in the dorsal connective tissue of 18 rats. 24 empty polyethylene tubes [Group 5: (Control group)] were implanted in the dorsal connective tissue of 6 rats. Then, the rats were sacrificed after 7th, 15th and 30th days in each time intervals (n=8). Biopsy samples were stained with H&E and examined for inflammation, necrosis, macrophage infiltrate, giant cell and fibrous capsule criteria. Immunohistochemical staining was performed to evaluate proinflammatory cytokines (IL-1β, IL-6 and IL-8). Results: When the composite groups and the control groups were compared; the difference was statistically significant for the criteria of inflammation at 7th and 15th days, there was no statistical difference between the time points in terms of fibrous capsule and necrosis. When the composite groups and control groups were evaluated in terms of proinflammatory cytokines; statistically significant differences were found at 7th, 15th and 30th days. Conclusion: All CRs used in this study showed acceptable biocompatibility in the subcutaneous tissues of rats after polymerization with different light sources.

This study aimed to compare the biocompatibility of two different self-adhering flowable resin composites (SAFCs). 54 polyethylene tubes filled with two different SAFCs [Group V: Vertise Flow (VF), Group F: Fusio Liquid Dentin (FLD), or Group C: empty (Control)] were implanted into the subcutaneous tissue of 18 rats. After 7, 30, and 90 days of implantation, the rats were euthanatized (n=6). The implanted materials were removed with the surrounding tissue for histologic evaluation. The subjects were evaluated in terms of inflammation, fibrous capsule thickness, necrosis, macrophage, and giant cell presence. When the SAFC groups and Group C were compared on days 7, 30, and 90, inflammation, fibrous capsule thickness, and macrophage on the 7th day were statistically significant (p<0.05). Statistically, the giant cell and macrophage criteria were statistically significant on the 7th, 30th, and 90th days in all groups (p<0.05). When the groups were evaluated on different days among themselves, significant differences were observed in terms of local tissue response (p<0.05), while necrosis was found to be statistically insignificant (p>0.05). Biocompatibility was found similar for the SAFCs. These materials used in the study have shown good biocompatibility in rats, and SAFCs can be considered suitable for all restorative treatments.

No abstract