2024 Volume 69 Issue 1 Pages 30-40
Purpose: To assess elution from direct composite materials for provisional restorations and compare them with elution from direct restorative composites for permanent restorations.
Methods: Two dual-cure (Integrity Multi-Cure and Tempsmart DC) and two self-curing composites (Protemp 4 and Structur 3) were used, with Essentia serving as a reference. Cylindrical specimens (n=20) were cured according to the manufacturer’s instructions; the dual-cure materials were prepared in both self- and dual-curing modes. Elution experiments were performed using water and absolute ethanol. The samples were incubated at 37 °C for either 24 h or four weeks; the extraction solvents were refreshed weekly. The eluted BisEMA (-3 / -6 / -10), BisGMA, CQ, UDMA, and TEGDMA were quantified using UHPLC-MS/MS.
Results: Monomer elution was detected in all provisional composites at 24 h and four weeks, but the amounts released did not exceed those released by the reference composite. When prepared in self-curing mode, Integrity Multi-Cure exhibited significantly higher elution of BisEMA-3, -6, and -10 in ethanol both after 24 h and cumulatively after four weeks. Self-cured Tempsmart DC released significantly more CQ, TEGDMA, and UDMA in both water and ethanol after immersion for 24 h and four weeks, along with significantly more BisGMA in ethanol both after 24 h and four weeks comparison to dual-cured Tempsmart DC (two-way ANOVA, post-hoc Tukey, P < 0.05).
Conclusions: Provisional composite materials did not elute higher amounts of monomers than a restorative composite. Dual-cured materials, prepared in the self-curing mode, show a trend towards higher monomer elution.
