World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 6 , ISSUE 2 ( April-June, 2015 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Influence of Chemical Degradation and Toothbrushing on Surface of Composites

Alessandra Buhler Borges, Cesar Rogério Pucci, Carlos Rocha Gomes Torres, Tânia Mara Da Silva, Ana Luísa Leme Simões Sales

Citation Information : Borges AB, Pucci CR, Torres CR, Silva TM, Sales AL. Influence of Chemical Degradation and Toothbrushing on Surface of Composites. World J Dent 2015; 6 (2):65-70.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1316

Published Online: 01-06-2015

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2015; The Author(s).


Abstract

Objective

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of chemical degradation media associated with brushing on surface roughness (Ra) and Knoop microhardness (KHN) analyses of different composites.

Materials and methods

Eighty specimens were prepared for each composite: GrandioSO (Voco), Amaris (Voco), Filtek Supreme (3M ESPE), Filtek LS (3M ESPE). The specimens were divided into four groups according to the immersion in chemical degradation media for 7 days: artificial saliva (control), heptane, 0.02 M citric acid, 70% ethanol. The surface of specimens was submitted to 10950 brushing cycles (200 gm load) in an automatic toothbrushing machine with abrasive slurry. Surface roughness and microhardness measurements were obtained at baseline, after immersion in chemical degradation media and after brushing. Data were submitted to three-way repeated measures ANOVA and Tukey's test (p < 0.05).

Results

The KHN means for composites were: Grandio (153.5 ± 35.9)a, Filtek Supreme (87.0 ± 24.9)b, Amaris (64.5 ± 24.5)c, LS (69.0 ± 15.3)c; for storage media: artificial saliva (97.3 ± 46.7)a, ethanol (93.3 ± 49.9)a, citric acid (95.8 ± 42.1)a, heptane (87.6 ± 36.7)b; and after treatments: after chemical degradation (104.8 ± 49.7)a, baseline (93.8 ± 42.5)b, after brushing (81.9 ± 36.5)c. The Ra results for composites were: LS (0.15 ± 0.25)a, GrandioSO (0.19 ± 0.24)ab, Filtek Supreme (0.20 ± 0.22)ab, Amaris (0.23 ± 0.37)b; for storage media: artificial saliva (0.18 ± 0.31)a, heptane (0.18 ± 0.25)a, ethanol (0.20 ± 0.26)a, citric acid (0.21 ± 0.28)a, and after treatments: brushing (0.11 ± 0.14)a, after chemical degradation (0.23 ± 0.32)b, baseline (0.24 ± 0.32)b.

Conclusion

Brushing after chemical degradation reduced surface roughness values. In general, chemical degradation did not affect composites roughness, but microhardness was significantly reduced. Heptane produced the biggest reduction in composites microhardness.

Clinical relevance

The food-simulating solutions and brushing simulating alter the composites properties, and these alterations are material-dependent.

How to cite this article

Torres CRG, Da Silva TM, Sales ALLS, Pucci CR, Borges AB. Influence of Chemical Degradation and Toothbrushing on Surface of Composites. World J Dent 2015;6(2):65-70.


PDF Share
  1. Chemical degradation of composite restoratives. J Oral Rehabil 2001 Nov;28(11):1015-1021.
  2. Effect of chemical degradation followed by toothbrushing on the surface roughness of restorative composites. J Appl Oral Sci 2010 Dec;18(6):585-590.
  3. Structure-property relationships in dental composites based on polydimethacrylates. Polymer Prepr 1997;38:94-95.
  4. Resin composites in dentistry: the monomer systems. Eur J Oral Sci 1997 Apr;105(2):97-116.
  5. Effect of chemical structure on degree of conversion in light-cured dimethacrylatebased dental resins. Biomaterials 2002 Apr;23(8):1819-1829.
  6. Hydrolytic degradation of dental composites. J Dent Res 1984 Oct;63(10):1248-1254.
  7. Effect of naturally acidic agents on microhardness and surface micromorphology of restorative materials. Eur J Dent 2011 Jan;5(1):89-100.
  8. The physical properties of conventional and resin-modified glass-ionomer dental cements stored in saliva, proprietary acidic beverages, saline and water. Biomaterials 2003 Oct;24(22):4063-4069.
  9. Surface degradation of composite resins by acidic medicines and pH-cycling. J Appl Oral Sci 2008 Jul-Aug;16(4):257-265.
  10. Surface roughening of glass ionomer cements by neutral NaF solutions. Biomaterials 2003 May;24(11):1995-2000.
  11. Effect of storage media upon the surface micromorphology of resinbased restorative materials. J Oral Rehabil 2002 Sep;29(9):864-871.
  12. Chemical softening and wear of dental composites. J Dent Res 1985 Nov;64(11):1326-1331.
  13. Effect of immersion in various media on the sorption, solubility, elution of unreacted monomers, and flexural properties of two model dental composite compositions. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2008 Jun;19(6):2477-2483.
  14. Effects of foodsimulating liquids on the mechanical properties of a siloranebased dental composite. Dent Mater J 2009 May;28(3):362-367.
  15. In vitro long-term degradation of aesthetic restorative materials in foodsimulating media. Acta Odontol Scand 2012 Mar;70(2):101-108.
  16. Effect of resin monomer composition on toothbrush wear resistance. J Oral Rehabil 1998 Apr;25(4):264-268.
  17. FDA guidelines for chemistry and technology requirements of indirect additive petitions. Washington: FDA; 1976.
  18. In vitro microleakage of adhesive-sealed dentin with lactic acid and saliva exposure: a radio-isotope analysis. J Dent 2004 Mar;32(3):235-240.
  19. The effect of toothbrushing on a hybrid composite resin. J Prosthet Dent 1991 Oct;66(4):498-500.
  20. Influence of storage regime prior to abrasion on surface topography of restorative materials. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2003 May 15;65(2):227-232.
  21. Influence of food-simulating solvents on resin composites and glass-ionomer restorative cement. Dent Mater 1989 May;5(3):201-208.
  22. Influence of different beverages on the microhardness and surface roughness of resin composites. Oper Dent 2005 Mar-Apr;30(2):213-219.
  23. Surface roughness of different dental materials before and after simulated toothbrushing in vitro. Oper Dent 2005 Sep-Oct;30(5):617-626.
  24. Softening of BISGMA-based polymers by ethanol and by organic acids of plaque. Scand J Dent Res 1984 Jun;92(3):257-261.
  25. Subsurface damage layer of in vivo worn dental composite restorations. J Dent Res 1984 May;63(5):675-680.
  26. The effect of Coca-Cola and fruit juices on the surface hardness of glass-ionomers and compomers. J Oral Rehabil 2004 Nov;31(11):1046-1052.
  27. Storage of polyacid-modified resin composites (compomers) in lactic acid solution. Dent Mater 1999 Nov;15(6):413-416.
  28. Effect of food-simulating liquids on the mechanical properties of provisional restorative materials. Dent Mater 2006 Dec;22(12):1130-1134.
  29. Effects of different solutions on the surface hardness of composite resin materials. Dent Mater J 2009 May;28(3):344-351.
  30. Do new matrix formulations improve resin composite resistance to degradation processes? Braz Oral Res 2013 Sep-Oct;27(5):410-416.
  31. In vitro mechanical property comparison of four resins used for fabrication of provisional fixed restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1998 Aug;80(2):158-162.
  32. Resistance of nanofill and nanohybrid resin composites to toothbrush abrasion with calcium carbonate slurry. Dent Mater J 2009 Nov;28(6):708-716.
  33. Siloranes in dental composites. Dent Mater 2005 Jan;21(1):68-74.
  34. Effect of prophylactic polishing protocols on the surface roughness of esthetic restorative materials. Oper Dent 2002 Jan-Feb;27(1):50-58.
  35. In vitro evaluation of surface roughness of 4 resin composites after the toothbrushing process and methods to recover superficial smoothness. Quintessence Int 2007 May;38(5):e247-253.
  36. Surface roughness and staining susceptibility of composite resins after finishing and polishing. J Esthet Restor Dent 2011 Feb;23(1):34-43.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.