The effect of esterase enzyme on aging dental composites
Sepideh Karkouti Oskoe
Department of Civil and Materials Engineering, University of Illinois at Chicago, 842 W. Taylor Street, Chicago, Illinois 60607
Search for more papers by this authorJames L. Drummond
JLDrummond Consulting, Mundelein, Illinois 60060
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Karl J. Rockne
Department of Civil and Materials Engineering, University of Illinois at Chicago, 842 W. Taylor Street, Chicago, Illinois 60607
Correspondence to: K. J. Rockne; e-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorSepideh Karkouti Oskoe
Department of Civil and Materials Engineering, University of Illinois at Chicago, 842 W. Taylor Street, Chicago, Illinois 60607
Search for more papers by this authorJames L. Drummond
JLDrummond Consulting, Mundelein, Illinois 60060
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Karl J. Rockne
Department of Civil and Materials Engineering, University of Illinois at Chicago, 842 W. Taylor Street, Chicago, Illinois 60607
Correspondence to: K. J. Rockne; e-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
We measured the push-out and diametral tensile strength of dental restorative composites following aging under environmental conditions relevant to the oral cavity; air (A), artificial saliva (AS), acidified (50 mM CH3COOH, pH = 4.7) artificial saliva (AS + HAc), and AS with esterase enzyme (AS + ENZ). Cylindrical test specimens (6.3 mm diameter by 5.1 mm long) were prepared by placing 0.3 g of nanofilled composite in an epoxy ring and cured. Twenty samples were aged in each environment for 163–186 days at 37°C. The push-out strengths (mean ± standard error of the mean [SEM], in MPa) for specimens were: A-2.4 ± 0.2, AS-7.3 ± 0.5, AS + HAc-7.2 ± 0.9, and AS + ENZ-6.0 ± 0.6. Following the push-out test, the diametral tensile strength and elasticity were immediately determined. The diametral tensile strengths (mean ± SEM, in MPa) for specimens were: A-54.0 ± 1.6, AS-31.4 ± 1.3, AS + HAc-34.3 ± 1.2, and AS + ENZ-22.5 ± 0.7. The push-out strength was lowest for the A environment due to shrinkage of the composite. The push-out strength increased significantly as water diffused into the specimens (AS and AS + HAc) but decreased significantly in the enzyme environment (AS + ENZ). The diametral tensile strength was highest for specimens in the A environment, which was significantly higher than both the AS and AS + HAc specimens and > 2× higher than the AS + ENZ specimens. The results indicated that a water environment (with or without acid) caused a significant decrease in the mechanical properties of this composite, but the greatest decrease was seen in water with esterase. This is the first study to demonstrate that esterase enzymes affect the bulk strength of a commonly used commercial dental composite. © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater 107B: 2178–2184, 2019.
REFERENCES
- 1Köhler B, Rasmusson CG, Ödman P. A five-year clinical evaluation of class II composite resin restorations. J Dent 2000; 28(2): 111–116.
- 2Roulet JF. Benefits and disadvantages of tooth-coloured alternatives to amalgam. J Dent 1997; 25(6): 459–473.
- 3Lu H, Koh H, Alcaraz MGR, Schmidlin PR, Davis D. Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fill-ings for permanent or adult posterior teeth. Syst Rev 2006; 1: CD005620. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005620.
- 4Drummond JL, Andronova K, Al-Turki LI, Slaughter LD. Leaching and mechanical properties characterization of dental composites. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater 2004; 71(1): 172–180.
- 5Ferracane JL, Berge HX. Fracture toughness of experimental dental composites aged in ethanol. J Dent Res 1995; 74(7): 1418–1423.
- 6Soderholm KJ, Roberts MJ. Influence of water exposure on the tensile strength of composites. J Dent Res 1990; 69(12): 1812–1816.
- 7Drummond JL, Lin L, Miescke KJ. Evaluation of fracture toughness of a fiber containing dental composite after flexural fatigue. Dent Mater 2004; 20(6): 591–599.
- 8Lohbauer U, von der Horst T, Frankenberger R, Krämer N, Petschelt A. Flexural fatigue behavior of resin composite dental restoratives. Dent Mater 2003; 19(5): 435–440.
- 9Lassila LVJ, Nohrström T, Vallittu PK. The influence of short-term water storage on the flexural properties of unidirectional glass fiber-reinforced composites. Biomaterials 2002; 23(10): 2221–2229.
- 10Mair LH. Subsurface compression fatigue in seven dental composites. Dent Mater 1994; 10(2): 111–115.
- 11McCabe JF, Wang Y, Braem MJA. Surface contact fatigue and flexural fatigue of dental restorative materials. J Biomed Mater Res Part A 2000; 50(3): 375–380.
- 12Miettinen VM, Narva KK, Vallittu PK. Water sorption, solubility and effect of post-curing of glass fibre reinforced polymers. Biomaterials 1999; 20(13): 1187–1194.
- 13Soderholm KJ, Mukherjee R, Longmate J. Filler leachability of composites stored in distilled water or artificial saliva. J Dent Res 1996; 75(9): 1692–1699.
- 14Söderholm KJM, Yang MCK, Garcea I. Filler particle leachability of experimental dental composites. Eur J Oral Sci 2000; 108(6): 555–560.
- 15Zhou M, Drummond JL, Hanley L. Barium and strontium leaching from aged glass particle/resin matrix dental composites. Dent Mater 2005; 21(2): 145–155.
- 16Drummond JL. Degradation, fatigue, and failure of resin dental composite materials. J Dent Res 2008; 87(8): 710–719.
- 17Mayworm CD, Camargo SS, Bastian FL. Influence of artificial saliva on abrasive wear and microhardness of dental composites filled with nanoparticles. J Dent 2008; 36(9): 703–710.
- 18Musanje L, Shu M, Darvell BW. Water sorption and mechanical behaviour of cosmetic direct restorative materials in artificial saliva. Dent Mater 2001; 17(5): 394–401.
- 19Vieira AC, Ribeiro AR, Rocha LA, Celis J-P. Influence of pH and corrosion inhibitors on the tribocorrosion of titanium in artificial saliva. Wear 2006; 261(9): 994–1001.
- 20Hurley RK, Drummond JL, Viana GC, Galang T. The effects of environment and cyclic fatigue on the mechanical properties of an indirect composite. J Dent 2012; 40(10): 787–792.
- 21Truong VT, Tyas MJ. Prediction of in vivo wear in posterior composite resins: A fracture mechanics approach. Dent Mater 1988; 4(6): 318–327.
- 22Lee HL Jr, Swartz ML, Smith FF. Physical properties of four thermosetting dental restorative resins. J Dent Res 1969; 48(4): 526–535.
- 23Taylor DF, Bayne SC, Sturdevant JR, Wilder AD. Comparison of direct and indirect methods for analyzing wear of posterior composite restorations. Dent Mater 1989; 5(3): 157–160.
- 24Manhart J, Kunzelmann KH, Chen HY, Hickel R. Mechanical properties and wear behavior of light-cured packable composite resins. Dent Mater 2000; 16(1): 33–40.
- 25Manhart J, Kunzelmann KH, Chen HY, Hickel R. Mechanical properties of new composite restorative materials. J Biomed Mater Res Part A 2000; 53(4): 353–361.
- 26Braem M, Finger W, Van Doren VE, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Mechanical properties and filler fraction of dental composites. Dent Mater 1989; 5(5): 346–349.
- 27Ilie N, Hickel R. Investigations on mechanical behaviour of dental composites. Clin Oral Investig 2009; 13(4): 427–438.
- 28Yamaga T, Sato Y, Akagawa Y, Taira M, Wakasa K, Yamaki M. Hardness and fracture toughness of four commercial visible light-cured composite resin veneering materials. J Oral Rehabil 1995; 22(12): 857–863.
- 29Winkler MM, Greener EH, Lautenschlager EP. Non-linear in vitro wear of posterior composites with time. Dent Mater 1991; 7(4): 258–262.
- 30Kim K-H, Ong JL, Okuno O. The effect of filler loading and morphology on the mechanical properties of contemporary composites. J Prosthet Dent 2002; 87(6): 642–649.
- 31Ruddell DE, Maloney MM, Thompson JY. Effect of novel filler particles on the mechanical and wear properties of dental composites. Dent Mater 2002; 18(1): 72–80.
- 32Hosseinalipour M, Javadpour J, Rezaie H, Dadras T, Hayati AN. Investigation of mechanical properties of experimental Bis-GMA/TEGDMA dental composite resins containing various mass fractions of silica nanoparticles. J Prosthet Dent 2010; 19(2): 112–117.
10.1111/j.1532-849X.2009.00530.x Google Scholar
- 33Lim BS, Ferracane JL, Condon JR, Adey JD. Effect of filler fraction and filler surface treatment on wear of microfilled composites. Dent Mater 2002; 18(1): 1–11.
- 34Al-Turki LI, Drummond JL, Agojci M, Gosz M, Tyrus JML, Lin L. Contact versus flexure fatigue of a fiber-filled composite. Dent Mater 2007; 23(5): 648–653.
- 35Shin MA, Drummond JL. Evaluation of chemical and mechanical properties of dental composites. J Biomed Mater Res Part A 1999; 48(4): 540–545.
- 36Drummond JL, Botsis J, Zhao D, Samyn J. Fracture properties of aged and post-processed dental composites. Eur J Oral Sci 1998; 106(2): 661–666.
- 37Freund M, Munksgaard EC. Enzymatic degradation of BISGMA/TEGDMA-polymers causing decreased microhardness and greater wear in vitro. Eur J Oral Sci 1990; 98(4): 351–355.
- 38Finer Y, Santerre JP. Biodegradation of a dental composite by esterases: Dependence on enzyme concentration and specificity. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed 2003; 14(8): 837–849.
- 39Finer Y, Jaffer F, Santerre JP. Mutual influence of cholesterol esterase and pseudo-cholinesterase on the biodegradation of dental composites. Biomaterials 2004; 25(10): 1787–1793.
- 40Larsen IB, Freund M, Munksgaard EC. Change in surface hardness of BisGMA/TEGDMA polymer due to enzymatic action. J Dent Res 1992; 71(11): 1851–1853, 1992.
- 41Kermanshahi S, Santerre JP, Cvitkovitch DG, Finer Y. Biodegradation of resin-dentin interfaces increases bacterial microleakage. J Dent Res 2010; 89(9): 996–1001.
- 42Delaviz Y, Finer Y, Santerre JP. Biodegradation of resin composites and adhesives by oral bacteria and saliva: A rationale for new material designs that consider the clinical environment and treatment challenges. Dent Mater 2014; 30(1): 16–32.
- 43Santerre JP, Shajii L, Leung BW. Relation of dental composite formulations to their degradation and the release of hydrolyzed polymeric-resin-derived products. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 2001; 12(2): 136–151.
- 44Bourbia M, Ma D, Cvitkovitch DG, Santerre JP, Finer Y. Cariogenic bacteria degrade dental resin composites and adhesives. J Dent Res 2013; 92(11): 989–994.
- 45Khalichi P, Singh J, Cvitkovitch DG, Santerre JP. The influence of triethylene glycol derived from dental composite resins on the regulation of Streptococcus mutans gene expression. Biomaterials 2009; 30(4): 452–459.
- 46Geddes DAM. Acids produced by human dental plaque metabolism in situ. Caries Res 1975; 9(2): 98–109.
- 47Gilmour MN, Green GC, Zahn LM, Sparmann CD, Pearlman J. The C1-C4 monocarboxylic and lactic acids in dental plaques before and after exposure to sucrose in vivo. Micro Aspects Dent Caries 1976; 1: 539–556.
- 48Larsen IB, Munksgaard EG. Effect of human saliva on surface degradation of composite resins. Eur J Oral Sci 1991; 99(3): 254–261.
- 49Bean TA, Zhuang WC, Tong PY, Eick JD, Yourtee DM. Effect of esterase on methacrylates and methacrylate polymers in an enzyme simulator for biodurability and biocompatibility testing. J Biomed Mater Res Part A 1994; 28(1): 59–63.
- 50De Gee AJ, Wendt SL, Werner A, Davidson CL. Influence of enzymes and plaque acids on in vitro wear of dental composites. Biomaterials 1996; 17(13): 1327–1332.
- 51Kostoryz EL, Dharmala K, Ye Q, Wang Y, Huber J, Park JG, Snider G, Katz JL, Spencer P. Enzymatic biodegradation of HEMA/bisGMA adhesives formulated with different water content. J Biomed Mater Res Part A: Appl Biomater 2009; 88(2): 394–401.
- 52Yourtee DM, Smith RE, Russo KA, Burmaster S, Cannon JM, Eick JD, Kostoryz EL. The stability of methacrylate biomaterials when enzyme challenged: Kinetic and systematic evaluations. J Biomed Mater Res Part A 2001; 57(4): 522–531.
- 53Anusavice KJ, Shen C, Rawls HR. Phillips' Science of Dental Materials. New York: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2013.
- 54 USEPA. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste Physical/Chemical Analysis (SW-846). United States Environmental Protection Agency. Washington: Government Printing Office; 2008 http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/testmethods/sw846/index.htm.
- 55Ferracane JL. Hygroscopic and hydrolytic effects in dental polymer networks. Dent Mater 2006; 22(3): 211–222.
- 56Örtengren U, Wellendorf H, Karlsson S, Ruyter IE. Water sorption and solubility of dental composites and identification of monomers released in an aqueous environment. J Oral Rehabil 2001; 28(12): 1106–1115.
- 57Malacarne J, Carvalho RM, de Goes MF, Svizero N, Pashley DH, Tay FR, Yiu CK, Marrilho MR. Water sorption/solubility of dental adhesive resins. Dent Mater 2007; 22(10): 973–980.
- 58Barker DL, Jencks WP. Pig liver esterase. Physical properties. Biochemistry 1969; 8(10): 3879–3889.
- 59Anderson HP. Size and shape of protein molecules at the nanometer level determined by sedimentation, gel filtration, and electron microscopy. Biol Proced Online 2009; 11(32):32–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12575-009-9008-x.