Article in PDF
How to Cite
Citation Manager
Readers' Comments (0)
Audio Visual Article Statistics
Link
to PUBMED
Print this Article
Send to a Friend
Advertisers
Access Statistics Resources
Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."
Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011
Dr. Shankar P.R.
"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."
Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011 Anuradha
Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.
Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020
Original article / research
Full Version
Comparative Evaluation of Solubility of a Single Shade Resin Composite with Conventional Composite: An In-vitro Study
Correspondence Address :
Dr. Farhin Katge,
T.P.C.T.s Terna Dental College, Nerul West, Sector 22, Navi Mumbai-400706, Maharashtra, India.
E-mail: pedotdc@gmail.com
Introduction: Resin composites have been commonly used in restorative dentistry over the years. The longevity of restorations depends upon various physical properties like as solubility. Composite solubility can lead to deleterious effects on the polymer structure.
Aim: To evaluate and compare the solubility of a single shade resin composite in comparison to a conventional resin composite in artificial saliva.
Materials and Methods: In the present in-vitro study, 44 pellets (10 mm × 1 mm) were prepared from each material. The pellets were divided into two groups (n=22) based on the immersion period of two days and seven days. They were incubated, weighed using an analytical balance, and then immersed in artificial saliva. Weighing was done again after the completion of the immersion period, and solubility was calculated. Paired and independent sample t-tests were used to compare the solubility of both materials after two days and seven days.
Results: The differences of solubility values for the single shade composite and conventional composite at two and seven-day intervals were (p=0.031) and (p=0.019), respectively, which were statistically significant. On inter-group comparison, the difference in solubility of the single shade composite at two days was significantly lower compared to conventional composites (p=0.024). Whereas, no significant difference was observed in solubility values between both groups at seven days (p=0.102).
Conclusion: The performance of the single shade composite in terms of solubility was better in comparison with conventional composite.
Aesthetics, Incubator, Resin composite, Solubility
Rebuilding form, function, and aesthetics are important requisites when performing restorations in both adults as well as children. Among various restorative materials, resin composites have clinically shown some of the best results due to their aesthetics, translucency, good micromechanical bonding, biocompatibility, and mechanical properties. The essential qualities of resin composites are their optical properties and colour matching (1),(2). Commercially, composite resins are available in multiple enamel and dentin shades of different translucencies and opacities, which demands increased chairside time (1).
The “Blending Effect” (BE) or “chameleon effect” can be defined as the ability of a material to acquire a colour similar to that of its surrounding tooth structure. It also depends on the shades of enamel and dentin as they reflect different wavelengths of light (3),(4). As enamel has a highly mineralised prismatic structure, a small amount of water and low organic content, higher transmission of light occurs (5). The quest for shortening restorative procedure time, increasing ease in shade matching, and reducing wastage of unused composite shades led to the evolution of universal shade composite which could match a wide range of classical shades.
Omnichroma is a newly developed single-shade resin composite. The structural colour phenomenon is based on the discrimination of wavelengths. Incident light interacts with nanostructures and supra-nano spherical filler particles in this resin composite and changes the transmission of light. This phenomenon allows shade matching of the composite material with the colour of the reference tooth (6).
In paediatric patients, along with the material handling properties, behaviour management skills, and time taken for the completion of the procedure plays a crucial role. Hence, materials that are easy to handle and aesthetically suitable with superior properties are preferred.
The main objective of carrying out restorative procedures in primary dentition is to maintain deciduous teeth in the arch until physiological exfoliation, for functional and aesthetic purposes. Hence, the longevity of the restoration placed on teeth is relevant. The longevity of the restorative material is affected by various physical properties, one of which is solubility. Solubility can be defined as the extent to which a material dissolves in a solvent at a given temperature (7).
Intraorally, resin composites are constantly exposed to an aqueous environment. The water that diffuses into the material causes dimensional changes as well as shear stress relaxation in the resin matrix (8). This leads to polymer matrix expansion and an increases in the bulk of the resin composite. Solubility results in leakage of fillers, organic substances, and ions from the resin composite material. Some of these organic substances may induce delayed allergic reactions as they are potent irritants. Time and material composition have been shown to affect both material degradation and leakage (9).
In the literature, the solubility of composite resins in various solutions such as water, artificial saliva, and mouth rinses has been widely studied. However, studies on the solubility of single-shade composite are sparse (10),(11),(12),(13). Therefore, the present study aimed to measure and compare the solubility of a single-shade resin composite and conventional resin composite in artificial saliva at two-day and seven-days time intervals. The null hypothesis considered for the present study was that there was no significant difference between the solubility of single-shade composite and conventional composite. The alternative hypothesis stated that there was a significant difference between the solubility of single-shade composite and conventional composite.
This in-vitro study was carried out in the Department of Paediatric and Preventive Dentistry at Terna Dental College, Nerul, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India, from September 2023 to November 2023. Ethical approval was obtained from the Institutional Ethical Review Board (TDC/EC/33/2022).
Inclusion criteria: The composite pellets with smooth margins and without distorted edges were included in the study.
Exclusion criteria: The partially or completely distorted composite pellets were excluded from the study.
Sample size calculation: The sample size was calculated in concordance with the results from a previous study reported by Cabadag OG and Gonulol N through G*Power software (version 3.1.9.7) (14). The sample size calculated was 44 from the above method.
Procedure
Two composite materials were selected for solubility evaluation in this study. The type and composition of the materials are listed in (Table/Fig 1).
Preparation of specimens: To prepare the disc-shaped pellets, a Teflon mould with the dimensions (1±0.1 mm x 10±0.1 mm) was used. The mould was filled with composite material and pressed between two glass slides to extrude any excess material. The composite material was photopolymerised using an Light Emitting Diode (LED) curing unit on both sides for a total of 20 seconds according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The pellets were removed from the moulds and examined for any minor irregularities. If present, they were removed by carefully grinding the sample with fine-grit sandpaper.
A total of 44 pellets were prepared for each restorative material, which was subdivided into two groups according to the storage time. The pellets were stored in artificial saliva for two days and seven days, respectively, before testing.
i. Group-1A (single-shade composite)-22 samples stored for two days in artificial saliva.
ii. Group-1B (single-shade composite)-22 samples stored for seven days in artificial saliva.
iii. Group-2A (conventional composite)-22 samples stored for two days in artificial saliva.
iv. Group-2B (conventional composite)-22 samples stored for seven days in artificial saliva.
Solubility measurement: Solubility measurements were conducted according to ISO 4049 standards (15).
To measure the diameter and thickness of the composite pellets, a digital caliper was used. The diameter of each pellet was measured at two points 90 degrees to one another, and the mean diameter was calculated. Each pellet was measured for its thickness at the center and on its circumference at four equally spaced-out points, after which the mean thickness was calculated. The formula V=π x r2 x h was used to calculate the volume (V) of each pellet, where r is the mean sample radius (diameter/2) and h is the mean sample thickness.
Each composite pellet was placed in separate labeled glass test tubes. To exclude light, the test tubes were wrapped in aluminum foil and placed in an incubator at 37°C for 24 hours (16). Then the two pellets were removed and weighed using a digital balance (Contech CA 503) from Contech Instruments Ltd., Mumbai, India, with an accuracy of 0.001 g (Table/Fig 2). This procedure was repeated three times until a constant mass, based on average calculation, was obtained, and the values were recorded in micrograms (μg) as m0.
Pellets were then placed back in their respective test tubes containing 2 mL of artificial saliva (Table/Fig 3) for two days and seven days. After completing the respective storage periods, the pellets were removed with tweezers, washed with distilled water, dried using absorbent paper, and desiccated in a hot air oven at 37°C for 15 minutes. The weights were recorded again (m1).
Solubility (S) was calculated as the change in weight before and after immersion in artificial saliva using the following formula (17):
S=m0-m1/V
Where:
S=Solubility
m0=Weight before immersion in artificial saliva
m1=Weight after immersion in artificial saliva
V=Volume of composite pellet
Statistical Analysis
The data were entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet which was then subjected to International Business Management (IBM) Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) for Windows version 22.0 software (Armonk, IBM Corp. NY) for statistical analyses. Means and standard deviations were calculated, and comparisons were performed using paired and independent t-tests. The level of significance was set as p<0.05.
The mean solubility values of the single shade composite after two and seven days were 4.36±2.9 μg/mm3 and 6.73±4.9 μg/mm3, respectively. Whereas, solubility values for the conventional composite after two and seven days were 5.25±5.1 μg/mm3 and 9.64±8.0 μg/mm3, respectively. On intra-group comparison, the differences in solubility values for the single shade composite at two and seven days intervals were statistically significant (p=0.031). Similarly, for the conventional composite, a significant difference was observed between the solubility values at two and seven days intervals (p=0.019) (Table/Fig 4).
In inter-group comparison, the difference in solubility of the single shade composite at two days was significantly lower compared to the conventional composites, with a p-value of 0.024. Whereas, at seven days, no statistical difference was observed in the solubility values between both groups (p=0.102).
The longevity of restorations is the most important requisite for measuring the success of restorative therapy. The retention of composite resin is affected by many variables, including patient, operator, material, and tooth-related factors. Some properties of composite restorations are affected by the oral environment, that has a negatively impacts the strength of the composite restoration. One such important property of a composite resin material is solubility. Hence, in the present study, the solubility of the newer single-shade composite resin was compared with that of the conventional composite resin. From the findings of the present study, the null hypothesis was rejected, and the alternative hypothesis was accepted, which showed a significant difference between the solubility of the single-shade composite and the conventional composite.
According to ISO 4049/2009, the solubility value of resin composite should be lower than 7.5 μg/mm3 (15). In the present study, the mean solubility values of the conventional composite were as follows: after two days-5.24 μg/mm3, and after seven days-9.64 μg/mm3, which was more than those of the single shade composite: after two days-4.36 μg/mm3, and after seven days-6.73 μg/mm3. Therefore, the results of the present study showed acceptable solubility after two days in artificial saliva for both materials, in accordance with ISO 4049/2009 standards (15). The conventional composite showed higher solubility at 9.64 μg/mm3, suggesting that it may be a contributing factor to increased microleakage.
Omnichroma, a single shade composite used in this study, used smart chromatic technology with the ability to capture structural colour. The smart monochromatic composite is composed of supra-nano spherical fillers, Silicon Dioxide (SiO2), and zirconium dioxide (ZrO2) with a particle size of 260 nm. These supra-nano fillers generate red-to-yellow colour, which combines with the colour of the surrounding tooth (18).
Solubility results in dissolution of a material in a solvent at a given temperature (7). It also measures the amount of residual unconverted monomer released into the solution. This monomer may have the negatively impact the material structure (19). Excessive solubility of a composite restoration can lead to matrix deformation and microleakage (20).
The solubility phenomenon is dependent on photopolymerisation and the composition of the resin composite (21). Both studied composites contain the monomer Triethylene Glycol Dimethacrylate (TEGDMA), which has greater hydrophilicity and increased sorption capacity. The single shade composite resin matrix differs from the conventional composite matrix by the addition of Urethane Dimethacrylate (UDMA), which is less hydrophilic (22),(23). Composite solubility also depends on material since the solvent must penetrate the polymer for leachable components to be released. It is known that hydrophilic materials cause increased degradation through solubility compared to hydrophobic materials (23).
In a study done by Ozer S et al., the solubility of Filtek Z250 and Filtek Silorane composite resins were checked in mouth rinses and artificial saliva (16). The results showed that the solubility values of both composite materials in artificial saliva were statistically insignificant. But, in the present study, the difference between the solubility values of single-shade composite resins was significantly lower compared to conventional composites at a two-day interval. The findings of the study by Gonulol N et al., stated that the solubility of Beautifil II composite was more than that of Filtek Z550 and Tetric N-Ceram, which are comparable to the findings of the present study (24). However, the findings of the study by Bajabaa S et al., did not in accordance with the findings of the present study (20).
Bajabaa S et al., showed that Omnichroma presented highest microleakage when compared to Tetric-N-Ceram. In their study, microleakage was evaluated, which could be a confounding factor in solubility. This may be explained by the presence of TEGDMA resin matrix in Omnichroma, which has a lower molecular weight compared to Bis-GMA and UDMA in Tetric-N-Ceram, which considerably reduced polymerisation and microleakage (20). The results of the study by Huang W et al., were comparable with the present study. In their research, they assessed the colour stability, water sorption, and solubility of eleven commercially available resin composite resins (17). The authors observed that the solubility of Beautifil II composite resin was lesser than Beautifil Flow Plus F03, Charisma Diamond, Charisma, Denfil, DX.Universal, Filtek Z350 XT, and Tetric N-Ceram. They also noticed that the solubility values of Beautifil II were more when compared to Ceram.X One Universal, Filtek Z250, and Magnafill Putty (17).
The single-shade composite had better performance with a reduced solubility rate over the assessed time duration assessed. Hence, the newer material could be considered for restorations in paediatric dentistry.
Limitation(s)
This research with its limitation of being an in-vitro assay. Further clinical studies, including randomised and non-randomised trials with a larger sample size, are needed to support the results.
In the present study, both composite materials showed solubility values within acceptable limits after two days. The single-shade composite showed lesser solubility than the conventional composite. The solubility of the composite resins was influenced by time, as both groups showed an increase in values after seven days.
DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2024/71223.19728
Date of Submission: Apr 10, 2024
Date of Peer Review: May 09, 2024
Date of Acceptance: Jun 06, 2024
Date of Publishing: Aug 01, 2024
AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? NA
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. NA
PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Apr 10, 2024
• Manual Googling: May 14, 2024
• iThenticate Software: Jun 05, 2024 (16%)
ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin
EMENDATIONS: 6
- Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
- Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
- Academic Search Complete Database
- Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
- Embase
- EBSCOhost
- Google Scholar
- HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
- Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
- Journal seek Database
- Popline (reproductive health literature)
- www.omnimedicalsearch.com