title: Water sorption and mechanical behaviour of cosmetic direct restorative materials in artificial saliva.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To evaluate the water sorption and mechanical behaviour of a compomer in comparison with those of its nominal forerunners, a filled resin restorative material and a conventional glass ionomer cement.
  
  
  METHODS
  Compomer (Dyract AP) (D-AP), filled resin (SureFil) (SF), and glass ionomer (ChemFlex) (CF) (all Dentsply, Addlestone, UK) restorative materials were tested. Forty bar specimens (26x1.5x1.0mm(3)) of each material were prepared according to the manufacturer's instructions and randomly distributed into eight groups: dry air (22% RH), saturated water vapour (WV) (100% RH), and five in artificial saliva (AS) at pH6, all at 37 degrees C, as well as untreated control (UC) (23 degrees C, 50% RH). Water sorption was assessed gravimetrically; flexural strength and elastic modulus were determined in three-point bend. The control group was tested at 24h; AS groups were separately tested after 0.5, 1, 3, 6 and 9 months; the other two at 9 months.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Mass gain for SF, D-AP and CF in AS was up to 0.17%, 1.2% and 7.0%, respectively. CF showed a marked decrease of strength in AS compared with other groups, followed by a gradual slight rise to a peak at 3 months. Unlike SF and CF, whose flexural strength remained relatively stable, that of D-AP showed a sharp decline from the 1 month peak (P=6x10(-7)) after 6 months in AS. D-AP also showed a slight decline in flexural modulus from a peak, that of SF was quite stable, while CF showed no peak. The values of flexural strength for both CF and D-AP at 9 months were significantly lower in AS than WV, but SF showed no such difference.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Materials intended for service in the mouth must be stored in a realistic medium if the results of testing are to be interpretable. Dyract AP, a compomer, does not seem suitable for application in stress bearing areas as is currently recommended by its manufacturer. The rapid decline in flexural strength after 1 month of exposure to AS and its progressive fall in flexural modulus suggest a progressive deterioration of the material and this necessitates re-examination of the chemistry of compomers, if the behaviour is typical of the class.
authors.affiliation: Dental Materials Science, Prince Philip Dental Hospital, 34 Hospital Road, Hong Kong, ROC.
authors.forename: L
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Musanje
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Shu
authors.forename: B W
authors.initials: BW
authors.lastname: Darvell
mesh_terms: D000388:Air; D000465:Algorithms; D020770:Compomers / Q000737:chemistry; D003188:Composite Resins / Q000737:chemistry; D003764:Dental Materials / Q000737:chemistry*; D004548:Elasticity; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements / Q000737:chemistry; D006801:Humans; D006813:Humidity; D006863:Hydrogen-Ion Concentration; D008422:Materials Testing; D008689:Methacrylates / Q000737:chemistry; D018583:Pliability; D012464:Saliva, Artificial / Q000737:chemistry*; D017640:Silicates / Q000737:chemistry; D013223:Statistics as Topic; D013314:Stress, Mechanical; D013696:Temperature; D013997:Time Factors; D014867:Water / Q000737:chemistry*
chemical_list: C410563:ChemFlex; D020770:Compomers; D003188:Composite Resins; D003764:Dental Materials; C088486:Dyract; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements; D008689:Methacrylates; D012464:Saliva, Artificial; D017640:Silicates; C403464:SureFil packable composite; D014867:Water