SUMMARY Objectives: This study evaluated the effect of toothbrushing with a dentifrice on gloss, roughness profile, surface roughness, and wear of conventional and bulk-fill resin-based composites. Methods and Materials: Gloss and surface roughness of resin-based composites (RBCs; Admira Fusion X-tra, Aura Bulk Fill, Filtek Bulk Fill Flowable, Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative, Filtek Supreme Ultra, Herculite Ultra, Mosaic Enamel, SDR flow+, Sonic Fill 2, Tetric EvoFlow Bulk Fill and Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill) were analyzed before and after brushing; the roughness profile and wear were also determined after toothbrushing. Representative three-dimensional images of the surface loss and images comparing the unbrushed and brushed surfaces were also compared. Analysis of variance and Tukey post hoc tests were applied (α=0.05) to the gloss, surface roughness, roughness profile, and surface loss data. Pearson's correlation test was used to determine the correlation between gloss and surface roughness, surface loss and percentage of gloss decrease after brushing, and surface loss and surface roughness after brushing. Results: For all RBCs tested after 20,000 brushing cycles, the gloss was reduced and the surface roughness increased (p<0.05). However, the roughness profile and the amount of surface loss were dependent on the RBC brand. Admira Fusion X-tra, Aura, Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill, and Tetric EvoFlow Bulk Fill showed the deepest areas of wear (p<0.05). A significant negative correlation was found between gloss and surface roughness, and a weak correlation was found between the decrease in gloss and the extent of surface loss, and any increase in surface roughness and the surface loss. Conclusions: Toothbrushing with a dentifrice reduced the gloss, increased the surface roughness, and caused loss at the surface of all the RBCs tested. Considering all the properties tested, Mosaic Enamel exhibited excellent gloss retention and a low roughness profile and wear, while Admira Fusion X-tra exhibited the greatest decrease in gloss, the highest roughness profile, and the most wear.

The effects of tooth brushing could affect the long-term esthetic outcome of composite restorations. This study evaluated the effect of two different emission spectrum light-curing units on the surface roughness, roughness profile, topography and microhardness of bulk-fill composites after in vitro toothbrushing. Valo (multiple-peak) and Demi Ultra (single-peak) curing lights were each used for 10s to polymerize three bulk-fill resin composites: Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative (FBF), Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill (TET) and Surefil SDR Flow (SDR). After 30,000 reciprocal strokes in a toothbrushing machine, the roughness profile, surface roughness, surface morphology, and microhardness were examined. Representative SEM images were also obtained. When light-cured with the Demi Ultra, SDR showed the most loss in volume compared to the other composites and higher volume loss compared to when was light-cured with Valo. The highest surface roughness and roughness profile values were found in SDR after toothbrushing, for both light-curing units tested. FBF always had the greatest microhardness values. Light-curing TET with Valo resulted in higher microhardness compared to when using the Demi Ultra. Confocal and SEM images show that toothbrushing resulted in smoother surfaces for FBF and TET. All composites exhibited surface volume loss after toothbrushing. The loss in volume of SDR depended on the light-curing unit used. Toothbrushing can alter the surface roughness and superficial aspect of some bulk-fill composites. The choice of light-curing unit did not affect the roughness profile, but, depending on the composite, it affected the microhardness.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Este estudo avaliou o efeito da escovação de dentária no perfil de rugosidade (RP), rugosidade superficial (RS) e microdureza (MI) de compósitos. A unidade fotopolimerizadora Valo (Ultradent) foi utilizada para fotoativar seis compósitos: Z350XT (3M ESPE), Z250 (3M ESPE), Charisma (Kulzer), Filtek Bulk Fill (3M ESPE), Tetric Evoceram (Ivoclar Vivadent), e Estelite Asteria (Tokuyama). Os discos de compósitos foram confeccionados (n = 10) e submetidos à escovação (30.000 ciclos). As amostras foram analisadas em relação a RP, e RS por microscopia confocal. MI foi obtida antes e depois de escovar. A unidade fotoativadora foi colocada na mesma posição a fim de avaliar MI em dois conjuntos de medições que correspondem à localização do LED na superfície, composta: luz violeta (405 nm) e luz azul (465 nm). Os dados foram analisados por teste de T-pareado, ANOVA de dois e três fatores e teste de Tukey (α = 0.05). A escovação não alterou as propriedades da superfície de qualquer um dos compósitos, exceto para Charisma. Z350 quando fotoativado com luz violeta levou a uma redução de MI após a escovação.

This in vitro study evaluated the effect of the beam homogeneity of a multiple-peak light-curing unit on the surface microhardness and the effect of toothbrushing wear on the microhardness, surface roughness, roughness profile, volume loss, and gloss retention of incremental and bulk-fill resin-based composites (RBCs). A LED light-curing unit (VALO) with four LEDs at the tip end (405, 445, 465A, and 465B nm emission peak) was used according to each manufacturer-recommended time to obtain disks (n=10) of six RBCs: Estelite Sigma Quick, Charisma Classic, Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill, Filtek Z250, Filtek Supreme Ultra, and Filtek Bulk Fill. Microhardness values were obtained according to each LED positioning of the light-curing unit on the top surface of the RBCs and were analyzed before and after toothbrushing regarding microhardness, surface roughness, roughness profile, volume loss, and gloss retention. Microhardness was considered homogeneous on the top surface regardless of the type of RBC or wavelength tested (p>0.05). Overall, toothbrushing did not reduce the microhardness of the RBCs but influenced the gloss values for most RBCs (p<0.001). Charisma Classic presented the greatest surface roughness and roughness profile after toothbrushing (p<0.05). Volume loss did not differ among RBCs (p>0.05). In conclusion, different wavelengths of the LED did not affect the top surface microhardness, regardless of the RBCs tested; and bulk-fill composites presented similar surface changes (microhardness, surface roughness, roughness profile, volume loss, and gloss retention) when compared to conventional composites after toothbrushing.

Este estudo avaliou os efeitos de unidades fotoativadoras e da escovação na perda de volume (PV), perfil de rugosidade (PR), rugosidade superficial (RS), morfologia (MO) e microdureza (MI) de compósitos do tipo "bulk-fill". Os aparelhos fotoativadores (Valo e Demi Ultra) foram utilizados para polimerizar três compósitos: Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative (FBF), Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill (TET) e Surefil SDR Flow (SDR). Discos dessas resinas compostas foram preparados (n = 10) e submetidos à escovação (30.000 ciclos). Posteriormente, foram analisados em microscópio confocal para determinar a PV, PR, RS e MO. A MI foi analisada em microdurômetro e a MO também foi avaliada em microscopia eletrônica de varredura. Os dados foram analisados por teste T-pareado (RS), ANOVA de dois (PV e PR), três fatores (MI) e teste de Tukey (α = 0,05).