The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 24 , ISSUE 9 ( September, 2023 ) > List of Articles


Effect of Prolonged Water Aging on the Bond Strength and Marginal Seal of Three Novel Restorative Materials

Dovelin Witty, Parvathy Kumaran, Balagopal Varma, J Suresh Kumar, Arun Mamachan Xavier, Malini Venugopal, Nishna Thankappan

Keywords : Cention-N, Filtek Z350, GIC Fuji IX, Water aging

Citation Information : Witty D, Kumaran P, Varma B, Kumar JS, Xavier AM, Venugopal M, Thankappan N. Effect of Prolonged Water Aging on the Bond Strength and Marginal Seal of Three Novel Restorative Materials. J Contemp Dent Pract 2023; 24 (9):632-637.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3560

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 13-10-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Aim: To assess and contrast the shear bond strength (SBS) and microbial leakage of Cention-N, Fuji IX, and nanohybrid composite restorative materials after being exposed to prolonged water aging. Materials and methods: A total of 30 self-curing acrylic blocks were prepared for SBS analysis. Extracted teeth were affixed on the acrylic resin to incorporate the root section. To expose the occlusal dentin, 3 mm of the midcoronal portion was sectioned. The sectioned samples were allocated into the following three groups: Group I: Fuji IX; group II: Filtek Z350; and group III: Cention-N. Cylindrical plastic tubing was used to place each material as directed by the manufacturer and water aging for 7, 14, and 28 days at 37°C. Also, a universal testing machine (UTM) was utilized for testing followed by a scanning electron microscope (SEM). For microleakage analysis, a total of 30 class-V cavities were prepared. The prepared samples were allotted to respective groups; Later, 200 thermocycles at 5°C and 55°C were applied for 30 seconds to mimic the oral environment. The root apices sealed with sticky wax and the exception of a 1-mm around the edges of the restorations were then painted twice with clear nail varnish and submerged in 0.5% basic fuchsin dye at 37°C. Samples were washed, dried, and sectioned longitudinally followed by stereomicroscopic evaluation. Results: Groups I (0.083), group II (0.083), and group III (0.102) did not show significant variation in the SBS after water degradation. At the end of 28 days of water aging, group III showed 33.3% adhesive failure and 66.7% mixed failure mode. For marginal leakage in group III, the mean and standard deviation (SD) were 334.90 ± 418.454 with the p = 0.001 showing a significant difference compared to groups I and II. Conclusion: Compared to nanohybrid composite and Fuji IX, Cention-N showed a superior SBS after being exposed to water aging and exhibited lesser marginal leakage. Clinical significance: Cention-N outperformed in its marginal adaptation with superior shear resistance and can be considered as an alternative bulk filling material.

  1. Mishra A, Singh G, Singh SK, et al. Comparative evaluation of mechanical properties of Cention-N with conventionally used restorative materials: An in vitro study. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2018;8(4):120–124. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10019-1219.
  2. Shipra J, Rani S, Zohra J, et al. Comparative evaluation of microleakage of Type IX GIC, chlorhexidine incorporated GIC and triclosan incorporated GIC: An in vitro study. J Res Adv Dent 2016;5(1):88–93. DOI: 10.4103/2231-0762.181188.
  3. Naz F, Samad Khan A, Kader MA, et al. Comparative evaluation of mechanical and physical properties of a new bulk-fill alkasite with conventional restorative materials. Saudi Dent J 2021;33(7):666–673. DOI: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2020.04.012.
  4. Fugolin APP, Pfeifer CS. New resins for dental composites. J Dent Res 2017;96(10):1085–1091. DOI: 10.1177/0022034517720658.
  5. Bhadra D, Shah NC, Rao AS, et al. A 1-year comparative evaluation of clinical performance of nanohybrid composite with Activa™ bioactive composite in Class II carious lesion: A randomized control study. J Conserv Dent 2019;22(1):92–96. DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_511_18.
  6. Chowdhury D, Guha C, Desai P. Comparative evaluation of fracture resistance of dental Amalgam, Z350 composite resin and Cention-N restoration in Class II cavity. IOSR–JDMS 2018;17(4):52–56. DOI: 10.9790/0853-1704015256.
  7. Sujith R, Yadav TG, Pitalia D, et al. Comparative evaluation of mechanical and microleakage properties of Cention-N, composite, and glass ionomer cement restorative materials. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020;21(6):691–695. PMID: 33025941.
  8. Nujella BPS, Choudary MT, Reddy SP, et al. Comparison of shear bond strength of aesthetic restorative materials. Contemp Clin Dent 2012;3(1):22–26. DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.94541.
  9. Feng J, Cheng L, Zhou XX, et al. Effects of water aging on the mechanical and anti-biofilm properties of glass–ionomer cement containing dimethylaminododecyl methacrylate. Dent Mater 2018 35(3):434–443. DOI: 10.1016/
  10. D'Alpino PH, Vismara MV, Gonzalez AH, et al. Free radical entrapment and crystallinity of resin composites after accelerated aging as a function of the expiration date. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2014;36:82–89. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2014.04.009.
  11. Okte Z, Villalta P, Garcia–Godoy F, et al. Surface hardness of resin composites after staining and bleaching. Oper Dent 2006;31(5): 623–628. DOI: 10.2341/05-124.
  12. Chen WC, Ko CL, Wu HY, et al. Thermal cycling effects on adhesion of resin-bovine enamel junction among different composite resins. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2014;38:105–113. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2014.07.003.
  13. Catelan A, Briso ALS, Sundfeld RH, Dos Santos, PH. Effect of artificial aging on the roughness and microhardness of sealed compt alosites. J Esthet Restor Dent 2010;22(5):324–330. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2010.00360.x.
  14. Abdalla AI. Effect of long-term water aging on microtensile bond strength of self-etch adhesives to dentin. Am J Dent 2010;23(1):29–33. PMID: 20437724.
  15. Lohbauer U, von der Horst T, Frankenberger R, et al. Flexural fatigue behavior of resin composite dental restoratives. Dent Mater 2003;19(5):435–440. DOI: 10.1016/s0109-5641(02)00088-x.
  16. Yahya NA, Shekh AM. Shear bond strength and failure mode of different dental adhesive systems. Ann Dent 2019;26:1–7. DOI: 10.22452/ADUM.vol26no1.
  17. Ustunkol I, Yazici AR, Gorucu J, et al. Influence of laser etching on enamel and dentin bond strength of silorane system adhesive. Lasers Med Sci 2015;30(2):695–700. DOI: 10.1007/s10103-013-1409-z.
  18. Mazumdar P, Das A, Mandal D. Comparative evaluation of bond strength of composite resin and Cention-N to enamel and dentin with and without etching under universal testing machine. Univ J Dent Sci 2018;4(3):1–6. Corpus ID: 225064269.
  19. Ugurlu M. How do the surface coating and one-year water aging affect the properties of fluoride-releasing restorative materials? Niger J Clin Pract 2020;23:720–728. DOI: 10.4103/njcp.njcp_591_19.
  20. Zhou X, Wang S, Peng X, et al. Effects of water and microbial-based aging on the performance of three dental restorative materials. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2018;80:42–50. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2018.01.023.
  21. Hoshika S, De Munck J, Sano H, et al. Effect of conditioning and aging on the bond strength and interfacial morphology of glass–ionomer cement bonded to dentin. J Adhes Dent 2015;17(2):141–146. DOI: 10.3290/j.jad.a33994.
  22. Alzraikat H, Burrow MF, Maghaireh GA, et al. Nanofilled resin composite properties and clinical performance: A review. Oper Dent 2018;43(4):E173–E190. DOI: 10.2341/17-208-T.
  23. Khalid H, Syed MR, Rahbar MI, et al. Effect of nano-bioceramics on monomer leaching and degree of conversion of resin-based composites. Dent Mater J 2018;37(6):940–949. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2017-338.
  24. Awad MM, Alshehri T, Alqarni AM, et al. Evaluation of the bond strength and cytotoxicity of alkasite restorative material. Appl Sci 2020;10(18):6175. DOI: 10.3390/app10186175.
  25. Murthy SS, Murthy GS. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of three commercially available glass ionomer cements in primary teeth. J Int Oral Health 2015;7(8):103–107. PMID: 26464550.
  26. Dugar M, Ikhar A, Nikhade P, et al. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of nanohybrid composite restoration after the placement of flowable compomer and composite using the snowplow technique. Cureus 2022;14(9):e28663. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.28663.
  27. Kidd EA. Microleakage: A review. J Dent 1976;4(5):199–206. DOI: 10.1016/0300-5712(76)90048-8.
  28. Alsagob EI, Bardwell DN, Ali AO, et al. Comparison of microleakage between bulk-fill flowable and nano-filled resin-based composites. Interv Med Appl Sci 2018;10(2):102–109. DOI: 10.1556/1646.10.2018.07.
  29. Taylor MJ, Lynch E. Microleakage. J Dent 1992;20(1):3–10. DOI: 10.1016/0300-5712(92)90002-t.
  30. Hameed H, Babu BP, Sagir VM, et al. Microleakage in resin composite restoration following antimicrobial pre-treatments with 2% chlorhexidine and Clearfil protect bond. J Int Oral Health 2015;7(7): 71–76. PMID: 26229374.
  31. Morresi AL, D'Amario M, Capogreco M, et al. Thermal cycling for restorative materials: Does a standardized protocol exist in laboratory testing? A literature review. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2014;29:295–308. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2013.09.013.
  32. Sardana A, Kumar M, Taneja S. Comparative evaluation of microleakage and hardness of newer posterior restorative materials. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res 2022;12(5):733–736. DOI: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2022.08.023.
  33. Dennis D, Pintauli S, Debora S. Microleakage comparative evaluation of RMGIC and alkasite with and without adhesive system in class V cavity: An in vitro study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2021;22(7):735–738. PMID: 34615776.
  34. Bhullar KK, Malhotra S, Nain R, et al. Comparative evaluation of intra orifice sealing ability of different materials in endodontically treated teeth: An in vitro study. J Int Clin Dent Res Organ 2019;11(1):14–19. DOI: 10.4103/jicdro.jicdro_18_18.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.