The purpose of this study was to evaluate the surface roughness (Ra), and the morphology and composition of filler particles of different composites submitted to toothbrushing and water storage. Disc‐shaped specimens (15 mm × 2 mm) were made from five composites: two conventional (Z100™, and Filtek™ Supreme Ultra Universal, 3M), one “quick‐cure” (Estelite ∑ Quick, Tokuyama), one fluoride‐releasing (Beautiful II, Shofu), and one self‐adhering (Vertise Flow, Kerr) composite. Samples were finished/polished using aluminum oxide discs (Sof‐Lex, 3M), and their surfaces were analyzed by profilometry (n = 5) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM; n = 3) at 1 week and after 30,000 toothbrushing cycles and 6‐month water storage. Ra data were analyzed by two‐way analysis of variance and Tukey's test (α = 0.05). Filler particles morphology and composition were analyzed by SEM and X‐ray dispersive energy spectroscopy, respectively. Finishing/polishing resulted in similar Ra for all the composites, while toothbrushing and water storage increased the Ra of all the tested materials, also changing their surface morphology. Beautifil II and Vertise Flow presented the highest Ra after toothbrushing and water storage. Filler particles were mainly composed of silicon, zirconium, aluminum, barium, and ytterbium. Size and morphology of fillers, and composition of the tested composites influenced their Ra when samples were submitted to toothbrushing and water storage.

No abstract

No abstract