Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Compomers”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 73 records · Page 4Linked to original sources
PubMed1998

Compomers: between glass-ionomer cements and composites.

The term 'compomer' was crafted by the producers of the first commercial material of this kind: a polyacid-modified composite resin, sold as a filling material for some specific applications. This term should recall the composite resins and glass-ionomer cements, since some features of these two generic materials are found in the compomers. Compomers contain a bifunctional monomer, which should be able to react with the pendant methacrylate groups of other monomers, as well as with the cations liberated by the glass particles. Several products of this kind are now available, and the purpose of this paper is to describe some of their specificities and to compare their influence on the mechanical properties, water uptake and fluoride release.

Biocompatible Materials↗
PubMed2000

Marginal adaptation of a new compomer under different conditioning methods.

OBJECTIVES: This in vitro study evaluated the marginal adaptation of compomer restorations placed using three different conditioning protocols. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty extracted caries-free molars with 3mm diameter cylindrical cavity preparations were divided randomly into three groups based upon the conditioning treatment used: (I) 36% phosphoric acid; (II) non-rinse conditioner (NRC, Dentsply DeTrey); and (III) no conditioning. Cavities were restored with Dyract AP using Prime&Bond NT (Dentsply DeTrey) as an adhesive. Silicone impressions of the briefly etched enamel surfaces were taken after finishing the restorations. Each sample was then longitudinally sectioned and impressions were taken. Epoxy resin replicas were prepared for SEM analysis. Qualitative and quantitative assessment were performed separately for the enamel- and dentine-restorative interface. RESULTS: Enamel fractures and open margins along the enamel-restorative margin were observed in some specimens in each group. No statistically significant difference was found in the percentage of gaps/cohesive failures between specimens prepared using different conditioning methods. For the dentine-restorative interface, uniform hybrid layers and long resin tags were often observed in Groups I and II. The hybrid layer in Group III was irregular and discontinuous along the interface. A significant difference (p<0.01) in the proportion of marginal gap was found between Group I (2%) and Group III (30%). CONCLUSIONS: Pre-treating the cavity with 36% phosphoric acid significantly improved the adaptation of the compomer and adhesive to dentine compared with no etching. The marginal quality at the enamel-compomer interface was not affected by the conditioning method used.

Acid Etching, Dental↗
PubMed1999

Fluoride release/uptake of polyacid-modified resin composites (compomers) in neutral and acidic buffer solutions.

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the fluoride uptake/release of polyacid-modified resin composites (compomers) in neutral and acidic buffer solutions. Two compomers (Dyract and Compoglass) were tested and the conventional glass-ionomer cement (GIC) Vivaglass Base served as a control. Forty specimens were fabricated from each of the respective materials. Twenty of these specimens were placed in artificial saliva and the other 20 specimens in a fluoridated dentifrice slurry for 5 min. Then, 10 fluoridated and 10 non-fluoridated specimens were immersed in a neutral buffer solution (pH 6.8), and the other specimens were immersed in an acidic solution (pH 4.0). After 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 days the samples were again placed in either a fluoridated dentifrice slurry or saliva for 5 min, after which time they were transferred to fresh buffer solutions. The fluoride content of the solutions was assessed with a fluoride sensitive electrode. Fluoride release from all the materials decreased continuously during the experiment, with a significantly higher release in the acidic solution compared to the neutral buffer solution. Fluoridation did not result in an increased fluoride release for the compomers. However, the conventional GIC revealed a significantly higher fluoride release after fluoridation. It is concluded that Dyract and Compoglass can not be replenished with fluoride, irrespective of the pH value of the environment.

Analysis of Variance↗
PubMed2003

The effect of home-use fluoride gels on glass-ionomer, compomer and composite resin restorations.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the resistance to dissolution by two home-use fluoride gels on the surface integrity of glass-ionomer, resin modified glass-ionomer, compomer and composite resin restorations. Class V cavities prepared in extracted teeth were restored with a glass-ionomer (Fuji II), a resin modified glass-ionomer (Vitremenr), two compomers (Dyract and F-2000) and a composite resin (Z-100). Groups of five specimens of each material were treated for 24 h with one of the following: (i). distilled water, (ii). neutral fluoride gel and (iii). acidulated phosphate fluoride (APF) gel. Surface degradation of the restorations was studied using standard electron microscopy (SEM), rated according to specific criteria and statistically analysed by the Wilcoxon test (rank sums). Acidulated phosphate fluoride was found to have a significant effect on all examined materials, while minimal effects resulted from the neutral fluoride gel compared with the control group. The effect of home-use fluoride gels on glass-ionomer, compomer and composite resin restorations.

Acidulated Phosphate Fluoride↗
PubMed2001

Shear peel bond strength of compomers veneered to amalgam.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The practice of veneering compomers to amalgam restorations has not been studied. PURPOSE: This in vitro study was designed to assess the shear peel bond strength and fracture pattern of 3 currently available compomers veneered to amalgam. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty cylindrical preparations were filled with amalgam. Half (30) had no surface treatment, whereas the other half were air abraded. In both groups, 10 specimens each were veneered with Dyract AP, Hytac, and F2000 according to the manufacturers' instructions. All samples were kept at 37 degrees C in 100% relative humidity for 48 hours. SPBS was assessed with a universal testing machine and fracture patterns with a stereomicroscope. The results were analyzed with 2-way ANOVA and Tukey's multiple comparison test. RESULTS: Dyract AP veneered to air-abraded amalgam had the highest SPBS (5.78 +/- 1.30 MPa); F2000 veneered to non-air-abraded amalgam had the lowest (2.99 +/- 1.4 MPa). Sandblasting significantly influenced SPBS in the case of Hytac (P<.02) and F2000 (P<.01). Within the non-air-abraded group, Dyract AP had significantly higher SPBS than Hytac (P<.03) and F2000 (P<.015). F2000 air-abraded specimens exhibited adhesive bond failure only, whereas all other groups showed both adhesive and combined bond failures. CONCLUSION: Of the 3 compomers tested for veneering to amalgam, Dyract AP showed the highest SPBS. Air-abrading the amalgam surface was found to improve the SPBS of Dyract AP, though not significantly. Low SPBS and poor adhesion indicated that F2000 is unsuitable for veneering amalgam.

Adhesiveness↗
PubMed2002

Long-term fluoride release from a glass ionomer cement, a compomer, and from experimental resin composites.

The aqueous phase of glass ionomer cements enables fluoride ions to diffuse and to be released from the material. The matrix of resin composites is much less hydrophilic, and fluoride incorporated in the material is only released in small amounts. It was the purpose of the present work to study the influence of resin matrix formulation on the fluoride release from experimental, fluoride-containing resin composites. The resin composites were based on methacrylate monomers and the adduct of maleic anhydride and HEMA (2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate). The resin composites contained 1 w% or 5 w% of AlF3*3H2O. A glass ionomer cement and a compomer were used as controls. Five disks of each material were stored in distilled water at room temperature. By means of a fluoride sensitive electrode, the fluoride release from disk-shaped specimens was determined periodically over 3 years. The glass ionomer cement released the most fluoride (1.54 +/- 4 microg/cm2 after 1 year and 248 +/- 7 microg/cm2 after 3 years). The compomer released relatively little fluoride during the 1st year (30 +/- 1 microg/cm2) but after this time the rate of fluoride release became equal to that of the glass ionomer cement, resulting in a release of 122 +/- 8 microg/cm2 after 3 years. Regarding the resin composites, the fluoride release increased with the hydrophilicity and the acid character of the polymer matrix. The release, however, was significantly lower than that from the glass ionomer cement and the compomer and ranged from 1.2 +/- 0.07 to 42 +/- 3.9 microg/cm2 at 1 year and from 2.3 +/- 0.16 to 79 +/- 6 microg/cm2 at 3 years.

Aluminum Compounds↗
PubMed2000

Color stability of compomer after immersion in various media.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of various media on the color stability of compomer and to compare these results to those of other materials that could be used in similar clinical circumstances. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this test, six materials (shade A2) were used: four compomers (Dyract, Compoglass F, Xeno, F2000), one composite resin (Clearfil AP-X), and one resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Fuji II LC). There were four test solutions: one alcoholic (whiskey), two low pH soft drinks (Coca Cola, orange juice), and deionized water as a control. A plastic ring mold (9-mm diameter x 1-mm height) was used to prepare 120 disk specimens. For 60 days, the test specimens were immersed in the various media daily for 3 hours then transferred to the deionized water. Color was measured by CIE L* a* b* relative to CIE source against a white background, using a colorimeter. Color change (delta E*) was calculated as delta E* = [(delta L*)2 + (delta a*)2 + (delta b*)2]1/2. Color changes (delta E*) were recorded after 1, 7, 30, and 60 days. RESULTS: The results indicated that compomer and resin-modified glass ionomer were susceptible to discoloration in various solutions over an extended period of time. Composite resin showed minimal perceptible color change. Specimens immersed in whiskey showed a significantly high perceptible color change (p < .0001). Water caused no perceptible color changes.

Analysis of Variance↗
PubMed2002

Effects of four prophylaxis pastes on surface roughness of a composite, a hybrid ionomer, and a compomer restorative material.

PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to compare the effects of three prophylaxis pastes (Nupro with coarse, medium, or fine pumice) with a new paste (Clinpro with perlite) on the surface roughness of a resin composite (Dyract AP), a hybrid ionomer (Fuji II LC), and a compomer (TPH Spectrum). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty disks (2 mm thick x 10 mm in diameter) of each material were prepared in split molds and stored for 24 hours at 37 degrees C in a 100% relative humidity humidistat. Baseline Mylar surface roughness values were determined. A single operator polished each specimen for 10 seconds with each paste. Five tracings of each specimen of surface roughness (Ra, microm) were made using a surface profilometer. Means and standard deviations were calculated, and analyzed by two-way analysis of variance (three restorative materials and four prophylaxis pastes as factors) and compared using Tukey-Kramer intervals calculated at the 0.05 level of significance. RESULTS: Analysis of variance showed significant differences among restorative materials (after polishing) and prophylaxis polishing agents. Tukey-Kramer intervals for comparisons were 0.04 and 0.05 microm, respectively. All polishing agents produced significant increased roughness compared with baseline, yielding the following results (X + SD, microm) for the three restorative materials (Fuji II LC, TPH Spectrum, Dyract AP): perlite, 0.16 +/- 0.07, 0.28 +/- 0.26, 0.79 +/- 0.64; course pumice, 0.36 +/- 0.17, 0.48 +/- 0.25, 0.88 +/- 0.46; medium pumice, 0.26 +/- 0.10, 0.35 +/- 0.30, 0.46 +/- 0.21; and fine pumice, 0.16 +/- 0.06, 0.34 +/- 0.30, 0.42 +/- 0.24). Fine pumice and perlite produced the least roughness on the hybrid ionomer, medium and fine pumice on the resin composite, and perlite on the compomer. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Since prophylaxis pastes have the potential to increase the surface roughness of resin composite, hybrid ionomer, and compomer restorative materials, routine polishing during prophylaxis should be avoided.

Aluminum Oxide↗
PubMed1997

Clinical evaluation of compomer in primary teeth: 1-year results.

The clinical performance of the compomer Dyract (L.D. Caulk, Dentsply) was evaluated and compared with that of the hybrid composite resin Prisma TPH (L.D. Caulk, Dentsply) in restorations of 60 bilateral matched pairs of primary teeth. After 1 year, the overall failure rate for both restorative materials was 1.7 percent. There were no statistically significant differences in recurrence of caries, color matching, marginal integrity or anatomic form. The only statistically significant differences were in marginal discoloration and wear, where the compomer was inferior to the hybrid composite resin. The authors conclude that compomer is a suitable alternative to amalgam for restoring primary teeth.

Case-Control Studies↗
PubMed2003

Restoration-enamel interface with argon laser and visible light polymerization of compomer and composite resin restorations: a polarized light and scanning electron microscopic in vitro study.

This polarized light (PL) and scanning electron microscopic (SEM) in vitro study investigated the effect of argon laser (AL) and visible light (VL) polymerization on the interfaces between compomer and composite resin restorations and the enamel cavosurfaces. Surface topography by SEM revealed a smooth transition between the restorative materials and adjacent enamel surfaces with no microspaces between the restorations and enamel surfaces. The enamel surfaces showed relatively smooth surface coatings with AL curing compared with exposure of etched prism endings with VL curing. The restoration-enamel interface by PL showed an intimate relationship between the restorative materials and the cavosurface enamel. No differences were found between AL and VL polymerization. With the restoration-enamel interface by SEM, compomers and composite resins were adapted closely to the cavosurface enamel and tags of restorative material protruded into the adjacent cavosurface enamel. Both VL and AL polymerization of compomers and composite resin restorations in vitro produced closely adapted restorations with intimate restoration-enamel interfaces. Such restoration-enamel interfaces may provide a certain degree of resistance against secondary caries formation, and this may be enhanced by the caries protective effect of argon laser irradiation.

Adhesives↗
PubMed1999

The effect of primers on bond strength of polyacid-modified resin composites (compomers).

This study evaluated the effect of primer on shear bond strength and marginal gaps of six new compomers immediately after light-activation. A resin-modified glass ionomer cement, a conventional glass-ionomer cement and a microfilled composite were used for comparison. The marginal gap widths of each of the four compomers and a microfilled composite used with the primer were significantly smaller compared with those used without the primer. The bond strength values of five compomers used with the primer were significantly higher than those used without the primer. The bond strength of conventional glass-ionomer was not affected by the primer (or the conditioner).

Adhesiveness↗
PubMed1998

Evaluation of the handling of a new compomer and novel dispensing system in general dental practice.

OBJECTIVE: Easy handling of materials is essential to the production of good clinical results. The handling properties of a new compomer material and its novel primer/adhesive-dispensing system were tested in clinical use. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Ten general dental practitioners used the new material and dispenser for 3 weeks and completed a questionnaire regarding the handling, esthetics, and ease of use. They were asked to compare the new material to the compomer, resin composite, and glass-ionomer materials normally used in their own practice. RESULTS: The material scored a mean of 4.4 for dispensing convenience on a linear scale of 1 (inconvenient) to 5 (convenient) and 4.6 for ease of use (5 = easy to use, and 1 = difficult to use). The dispensing system achieved a high rating of 4.9 for convenience (5 = convenient, and 1 = inconvenient). CONCLUSION: The new material received ratings that were superior to those of the glass-ionomer and compomer materials normally used by the evaluators and similar to ratings of the resin composite normally used.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Dyract compomer: comparison of total etch vs. no etch technique.

Different dental materials and methods can influence the integrity of the marginal seal of restorations. To evaluate the microleakage of Dyract AP Light Cured Compomer, a polyacid modified resin (Caulk), using etched and unetched techniques, standardized trapezoidal Class V restorations were placed on facial or lingual surfaces of 20 human molars with the gingival margin in the cementum. Each restoration was scored at the cervical by two independent, double blinded operators, with reference to the DEJ, for dye penetration on a ranking system of: 0 = no evidence of dye penetration; 1 = dye penetration up to one-half the distance to the axial wall; 2 = dye penetration beyond one-half the distance to the axial wall but short of the axial wall; 3 = dye penetration to the axial wall or beyond. Statistical analysis (Fisher Exact Test) indicated that the etched compomer demonstrated significantly less microleakage when compared to the unetched compomer (p < 0.05).

Acid Etching, Dental↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Compomers adaptation to Class I and V cavities in permanent teeth.

This study evaluated the adaptation of Compoglass, Dyract and Hytac to Class I and V cavities and the effect of etching on that adaptation. Sixty molars were used, divided for the three compomers used, which were subdivided for Class I and V and redivided into etched and nonetched cavities (5 each). Standard Class I and V cavities were prepared. The adhesives were applied and the cavities restored with the compomers. The restoration was finished and the cavosurface margins examined under the light microscope for any gap formation. The restored cavity was sectioned in two halves, which were fixed in glutaraldehyde and polished. The restoration-tooth interface was examined under the light microscope for any existent gap. Then one half from each tooth was prepared for SEM examination. The results revealed good adaptation of the compomers at the cavosurface margins except nonetched Class V cavities restored with Dyract. Restorations in Class V were more adapted than Class 1. Dyract and Compoglass showed better adaptation inside the cavity than Hytac. Cementum wall displayed good adaptation with all restorative materials. Etched cavities showed consistent hybrid layer formation whereas nonetched cavities showed interrupted hybrid layer with poor resin penetration.

Acid Etching, Dental↗
PubMed2000

Resin-based composites and compomers in primary molars.

Resin-based composite resins and polyacid-modified resin-based composites (compomers) have become popular for the restoration of primary anterior and posterior teeth. In some European countries, resin-based composites or glass-ionomers are the materials of choice for primary teeth because of the controversy over dental amalgam and its alleged adverse health effects resulting from the release of mercury, although a clear correlation between amalgam restorations and health has not been determined. Another reason for the worldwide increased use of resin-based composites and glass-ionomers in pediatric dentistry could be attributed to the growing demand from parents to provide esthetic restorations to their children. More conservative preparations can be performed maintaining more tooth structure because of the adhesive properties of the composites and compomers. The most conservative treatment planning and meticulous care in the placement of the resin-based composites and compomers would produce long-term satisfactory results. These restorations should be placed in patients with low-to-moderate caries risk, and after placement the restorations should be monitored carefully to avoid complications mainly produced by recurrent caries and wear.

Adhesives↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Cervical compomer restorations: the role of cavity etching in a 48-month clinical evaluation.

Compomers are defined as polyacid-modified resin composites. They are supposed to combine the advantages of traditional glass-ionomer cements with resin composites. This study clinically evaluated a compomer in cervical cavities. Sixty cervical cavities in premolars and molars (24 with cervical caries and 36 with abrasions) randomly divided into two groups of 30 teeth (Group 1 and Group 2) were restored with Dyract (DeTrey-Dentsply, York, PA 17405-0872). The cavities of Group 2 were etched for 30 seconds with orthophosphoric acid before compomer application, while the Group 1 cavities received no treatment. All the restorations were evaluated every six months, up to 48 months: characteristics assessed according to USPHS-modified standards were retention, secondary caries, post-operative sensitivity, marginal adaptation and discoloration, color and wear. The Kaplan-Meier's survival analysis was performed. In both groups, retention was high without any statistically significant difference. No difference was found between the two groups for caries, post-operative sensitivity and wear--that all had a low incidence. Color was not perfectly matched, however, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups. Marginal discoloration and marginal adaptation loss were significantly higher in non-etched group (p < 0.05). Clinically relevant failure required 17.2% of restorations in the non-etched group and 10% in the etched group to be replaced: this difference was not statistically significant. Dyract has an acceptable clinical behavior when used in cervical cavities. Its marginal adaptation is enhanced by etching.

Acid Etching, Dental↗
PubMed2000

Use of a compomer in Class V restoration: a microleakage study.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the microleakage of Class V lesions restored with a compomer material (Dyractflow) using 2 single-bottle bonding systems. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Sixty-four Class V cavity preparations were made on 32 sound, extracted human premolars, 1 preparation on the facial surface and 1 on the lingual surface. Teeth were then randomly divided into 2 groups. Group 1, which served as the control group, was restored as follows: group 1a, facial surface with PQ1 single-bottle bonding system plus TPH resin composite; group 1b, lingual surface with Prime & Bond NT single-bottle bonding system plus TPH. Group 2 was restored as follows: group 2a, facial surface with PQ1 plus Dyractflow compomer material; group 2b, lingual surface with Prime & Bond NT plus Dyractflow. After 24 hours of storage in water and subsequent thermocycling, each specimen was immersed in 0.2% basic fuchsin dye for 24 hours. The teeth were sectioned longitudinally and horizontally, and dye penetration at enamel and cementum margins was viewed at x30 magnification by 2 independently calibrated evaluators. Specimens were evaluated as either having leaked or not having leaked. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences in microleakage were noted between group 1 and group 2 specimens. CONCLUSION: Both single-bottle bonding systems, PQ1 and Prime & Bond NT, demonstrated equal effectiveness in reducing microleakage beneath compomer and composite restorations.

Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Compomers as Class II restorations in primary molars.

A variety of alternatives to amalgam are now available for use in class II restorations in primary teeth, including glass ionomer, composites, and intermediate materials such as compomer and resin modified glass ionomers (RMGI). The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the clinical performance of two compomers, Hytac and Dyract, and to compare these results to those reported for other intracoronal restorative materials. Evaluation after 24 months shows Hytac and Dyract to have performed well and comparably as class II restorations in primary teeth. The low failure rate, even in a population with a high caries increment, suggests that compomers are a suitable alternative to amalgam or other, tooth-colored materials when used as class II restorations in primary teeth.

Chi-Square Distribution↗