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
Physico-Mechanical Characteristics of Ormocer and Bulk Fill Composite Resin Restorative Materials: An in-vitro Study
Correspondence Address :
Dr. Siriboina Sirisha,
Postgraduate, Department of Pedodontics, Vishnu Dental College, Bhimavaram-534202, Andhra Pradesh, India.
E-mail: sirishasiriboina15@gmail.com
Introduction: Bulk Fill (BF) resins and Ormocers are recently introduced composite restorative materials in order to overcome the disadvantage of polymerisation shrinkage exhibited by most of the conventional resin-based composites.
Aim: To evaluate the physical and mechanical properties of Organically Modified Ceramics (Ormocers) in comparison with BF composite resin restorative material.
Materials and Methods: The current in-vitro research was conducted from June 2021 to July 2022, in the Department of Pedodontics at Vishnu Dental College, Bhimavaram, Andhra Pradesh, India. This in-vitro study, 20 human extracted premolars were allocated into two groups of 10 each. ORM (Group-1 Admira fusion, n=10) and BF (Group-2 Filtek BF, n=10) composite materials were used to prepare and restore Class-V cavities. The teeth were subjected to thermocycling and immersed in 1% methylene blue dye solution. Along the lateral walls of each sectioned specimen, depth of dye penetration was measured under the stereo microscope. A total of 20 rectangular (25×2×2 mm) and 20 disc (10×2 mm) shaped specimens of the above-mentioned materials were fabricated. Specimens of Flexural Strength (FS) were tested with the universal testing machine and Vickers hardness tester used for Surface Hardness (SH) evaluation. The data was statistically analysed using an unpaired t-test.
Results: Total of 20 extracted premolars were analysed. On inter-group comparison, it was observed that mean dye penetration was lowest for Group-1 (0.6±0.69) compared to Group-2 (2±0.81) and the difference observed was statistically significant (p=0.001). BF exhibited a lower FS of 211.69±43.9 compared to Ormocer 326.19±90.3, the difference is statistically significant (p=0.001). However, BF exhibited a higher SH of 38.731±1.15 compared to Ormocer 33.774±0.869, and the difference is statistically significant (p-value <0.001).
Conclusion: Ormocer exhibited improved marginal integrity and also higher FS compared to BF resin restorative materials. However, BF exhibited higher SH values compared to Ormocer.
Flexural properties, Hardness test, Leakage, Organically modified ceramics
Resin-based composite materials are popular aesthetic restorative materials due to their ease of use, minimal loss of tooth structure, and ability to be placed directly. Composite resin materials have become the most widely used posterior tooth restorations and satisfy rising requirement for aesthetics due to a significant improvement in newer generation bonding agents, emerging resin formulations, and recent technologies (1).
In comparison to other restorative materials, dental composites stand out for their handling characteristics, aesthetic appearance, and clinical durability (2). Inspite of good physical properties, composite resin materials have the following drawbacks: polymerisation shrinkage and stress causing microcracks within the material, bonding agent separation from the cavity lining that could result in formation of a gap. The other diasadvantages includes microleakage, sensitivity, enamel cracks, wear, discolouration, reduced fracture resistance, marginal staining, recurrent carious lesions and deformation (3).
Marginal microleakage is defined as the clinically undetectable passage of bacteria, metabolites, enzymes, toxins, ions, and four other cariogenic factors between the restoration and the cavity lining as described in study by Kidd EA (4). Clinical consequences of microleakage include secondary caries, pulpal inflammation, discolouration, post-operative sensitivity, and reduced longevity of restoration (5). The occlusion load and temperature changes in the oral cavity, are leading to the formation of a marginal gap at the contact surface between the tooth and material (6).
Several techniques for reducing polymerisation shrinkage have been predicted. The use of incremental placement of restorative material is one of them (7). However, this technique has some drawbacks, such as prolonged clinical time, inclusion of air bubbles, and the possibility of clinical errors (8).
To simplify this incremental layering technique and reduce chair time, newer generation of resin composites known as “BF resins” were introduced (8). Compared to traditional composites, filler-volume percentage is higher in BF composites. The initiator system in BF composites is modified for better physical and mechanical properties to withstand higher masticatory forces (9). Organically modified ceramic material, a novel resin-based restorative material abbreviated as Ormocer was recently developed (10). The goal of this material development was to eliminate polymerisation shrinkage by modifying its composition (11).
A variety of factors must be considered when selecting a suitable resin-based composite for restoration in modern dentistry. This necessitates functional properties such as enhanced restorative longevity as a result of excellent mechanical properties including high strength, SH, and low polymerisation shrinkage (12). Both BF and Ormocer resin restorative materials exhibit less polymerisation shrinkage (7),(11). Gupta R et al., and Garapati S et al., conducted studies on properties of BF and Ormocer restorative materials individually however, very limited research was available on comparing the physical and mechanical properties of these two materials (1),(11). Therefore, this in-vitro study was intended to evaluate and compare the physico-mechanical properties of Ormocer and BF composite resin restorative materials.
The current in-vitro research was conducted from June 2021 to July 2022, in the Department of Pedodontics at Vishnu Dental College, Bhimavaram, Andhra Pradesh, India. Study design was accepted by Institutional Review Board (IECVDC2021/PGO1/PPD/IVT/33). Two composite restorative materials such as Admira fusion (Voco, Germany), Filtek BF (3M ESPE, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA) were used in the study. A stereomicroscope (Olympus SZX 16), Universal Testing Machine (UTM) (AE-UTM-LC2, Advanced Equipments, India), and Vickers microhardness tester (Daksh Quality Systems Pvt., Ltd., India) were used to assess microleakage, FS and SH, respectively.
Sample size: The sample size was determined using the findings of the pilot study (n=24) using the G power 3.1 software at a level of significance set as 5% and 80% power. A total of 30 samples per group, thus totaling to an effective sample size of 60, for three parameters in two groups. Group-1 Ormocer (Admira fusion, Voco) and Group-2 BF (Filtek, 3 M ESPE).
Procedure
Evaluation of microleakage (Table/Fig 1): Specimens (20 extracted premolars) were stored in 10% formalin solution for one week (13). Class-5 cavities with standardised dimensions were prepared on the buccal surfaces of all teeth (3×2×2 mm) (14). Following cavity preparation, teeth were etched, and a bonding agent (Admira bond, VOCO (11), 3M™ Single bond universal) was applied as per the manufacturer’s instructions for Groups 1 and 2, respectively. Then, half of the samples (n=10) were restored with Ormocer cured using Light Emitting Diode (LED) (Woodpecker Ltd.,) curing light intensity (500 mW/cm²) for 20 seconds, and another half of the samples (n=10) were restored with BF and cured using Elipar™ S10 LED Curing Light (1200 mW/cm2) for 20 seconds according to manufacturers instructions.
Except for 1 mm around the restoration, the root and crown surfaces were covered with two coats of nail varnish. Samples were subjected to thermocycling with 500 cycles by varying immersion in water at 5°C and 55°C with dwell time of 30 seconds and transfer times of 30 seconds in each bath (14). Specimens were then suspended in a 2% methylene blue dye solution, and dye penetration depth was measured using the following scoring criteria under a stereomicroscope to determine microleakage (Table/Fig 2) (15).
Evaluation of Flexural Strength (FS): Rectangular (25×2×2 mm) specimens (n=20) were prepared to measure FS. For 10 Samples, Ormocer was packed in the mould and for the other 10 samples, BF composite was packed and specimens were cured, then specimens were mounted on the holder of the UTM and three point bending test was performed. FS values were then computed in units (MPa).
Evaluation of Surface Hardness (SH): Disc-shaped (10×2 mm) specimens (n=20) were prepared to measure SH. For 10 samples, Ormocer was packed in the mould and for the other 10 samples, BF composite was packed and specimens were cured then specimens were mounted on a Vickers Hardness (VHN) tester and the lens was focused to identify the location to make an indent. The average length of diagonals was measured as the VHN value of the specimen in units kg/mm2.
Statistical Analysis
The obtained data was tabulated in Microsoft excel sheet (2019) and subjected to statistical analysis. Since the data was normally distributed, a parametric test (unpaired t-test) was used for intergroup comparison.
Comparison of Mean Surface Hardness (SH)
Ormocer (Group-1) exhibited SH values ranging between 32.5 kg/mm2 to 35.2 kg/mm2, whereas BF (Group-2) resin material exhibited SH values ranging between 36.2 kg/mm2 to 39.1 kg/mm2. On intergroup comparison of mean, SH values between the groups, BF showed higher microhardness (38.73±1.15) kg/mm2 compared to the Ormocer (33.74±0.869) kg/mm2 and the difference observed to be significant (p<0.001) (Table/Fig 3).
Comparison of Mean Flexural Strength (FS)
Ormocer (Group-1) exhibited FS values ranging between 264 MPa to 520 MPa. Whereas BF (Group-2) resin material exhibited FS values ranging between 135 MPa and 240 MPa. On intergroup comparison of mean FS values between the groups, Ormocer showed higher FS (326.19±90.3) compared to the BF (211.69±43.9) samples, and the significant difference (p=0.001) was noted (Table/Fig 4).
Comparison of Microleakage
The dye penetration test revealed that five out of ten specimens in Group-1 (Ormocer) scored 0, four specimens scored 1 and one specimen scored 2 whereas in Group-2 (BF), three out of ten specimens showed Score-1, four had revealed a Score-2, and three exhibited a Score-3. On intergroup comparison, it was observed that mean dye penetration was lowest for Group-1 (0.6±0.69) compared to Group-2 (2±0.81), and significant (p=0.001) difference was seen (Table/Fig 5).
The present study evaluated physical and mechanical properties of two different composite resin restorative materials. This in-vitro study reported that Ormocer exhibited better marginal integrity and also high FS compared to BF resin restorative materials. BF composites had a higher SH than Ormocer.
Physical and mechanical properties are important factors to consider when choosing the best restorative materials because they have a significant impact on clinical durability (16). Because it measures the resistance of restoration to occlusal forces, FS is a mechanical characteristic associated with fractures (17). SH determines its longevity, strength, and sustainability, especially in stress-bearing areas (18).
The marginal seal and the absence of leakage are the important factors for the retention of a restoration (19). Polymerisation shrinkage causes microleakage, which compromises the material’s integrity and is responsible for leakage (6). Numerous aesthetic restorative materials have been tried to withstand various masticatory forces and shrinkage stresses (18). By varying filler particle size, shape, and concentration, evolutionary research has been conducted in order to reduce shrinkage stresses and to improve properties such as compressive and FS (20).
BF as a composite material has the advantage of being able to be applied in large quantities of 4 mm thickness and cured in a single step with no impact on moisture contamination or polymerisation shrinkage (21). Ormocer is composed of ceramic polysiloxane, which shrinks less than the organic dimethacrylate monomer matrix found in composites (22). The current study found that Ormocer samples had less microleakage and higher FS when compared to BF resin materials, indicating superior marginal integrity. These findings are in agreement with those of Kalra S et al., stating that Ormocer had superior marginal sealing ability when compared to conventional composite and Nanocomposite (22). Multifunctional silane molecules can bind Ormocer’s inorganic components to organic polymers. Ormocer was reported to have a 2% volumetric shrinkage, indicating improved marginal integrity (23).
Hardness is an indirect measure of a material’s degree of conversion (%) and provides information on the depth of polymerisation (9). As a result, the current research suggests that BF composites had a higher degree of conversion than Ormocer, which could account for their higher SH. This study’s findings were consistent with those of Poggio C et al., who conducted a study to evaluate the microhardness of various aesthetic restorative materials after immersion in an acidic drink (24). This could be due to the chemical composition of cement, specifically the size of the filler particles, the content of the filler particles, and the degree of conversion.
The mechanical properties of composites are widely accepted to be directly related to filler loading. Filtek and admira have 58.4% (25) and 69% (24) filler content by volume, respectively. This slight variation in filler loading explains why Ormocer has the highest FS when compared to BF resin materials. In this study, Ormocer had the highest FS value of 326.19 MPa when compared to BF composites as it had the highest filler loading of 84% (W/W) (24).
The current study was conducted in-vitro and used extracted teeth for restoration, with thermocycling as a part of the test protocol which completely does not simulate the oral conditions. Superior characteristics of Ormocer in-vitro shall be further checked with long-term clinical studies for confirmation under in-vivo conditions.
SH of BF composites was greater than that of Ormocer. Ormocer, on the other hand, demonstrated better marginal integrity as well as higher FS when compared to BF resin restorative materials. Because there were no residual monomers left after polymerisation, this novel material can be preferred over BF resin restorative material, resulting in lower shrinkage stress.
DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2023/62857.18107
Date of Submission: Jan 12, 2023
Date of Peer Review: Jan 27, 2023
Date of Acceptance: Feb 28, 2023
Date of Publishing: Jul 01, 2023
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: Jan 13, 2023
• Manual Googling: Feb 14, 2023
• iThenticate Software: Feb 25q, 2023 (6%)
ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin
EMENDATIONS: 7
- 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