Assessing wear and surface roughness of different composite resins after toothbrushing

Abstract

The aim of this work was to compare the in vitro wear and roughness of different composite resins after toothbrushing. Six resins were tested: Revolution (Kerr), Natural Flow (DFL), Flow It! (Jeneric-Pentron), Fill Magic Flow (Vigodent) -flowable composites, Silux Plus (3M) -microfilled composite, and Z100 (3M) -hybrid composite. Eight disks were prepared for each group (n = 48), with 12 mm in diameter and 1mm thick. The specimens were stored in distilled water at 37 °C for 7 days, polished (Super Snap), weighed and submitted to the initial roughness test. Each sample was fixed on plexiglass plates and subjected to simulated toothbrushing. After abrasion, the samples were removed from the plates, weighed and submitted to the post-abrasion roughness test. Statistical analysis was performed by using ANOVA and Tukey's test. Pearson's test was used to verify correlation between wear and roughness. Data showed a similar resistance to wear of Natural Flow and Z100, both presenting minimum mass loss and surface roughness. Silux Plus presented the roughest surface after toothbrushing.

Influence of different light-curing units on the surface roughness of restorative materials: in situ study

“…Many variables can influence the extent at which resin composites wears, including filler type and size, as well as, the coupling between filler and resin matrix 26 However, in vitro studies can be complemented with in situ experiment 10,21,24,27 , whereas this model is performed in the human Heraeus Kulzer, Germany mouth, allowing the establishment of the characteristics of the restorative materials when exposed to saliva, pH changes and other oral influences. Thus, the in situ experiment must be considered, because the wear is a complex process that depends on the jaw movement and premature contact 17 , as well as, on toothbrushing 28,29 and the chemical, mechanical and biological components, which can affect the bulk of the material 24 .…”

“…Conversely, when immediately and 30-days post-irradiation times were evaluated, it was verified an increase in the roughness means after 30-days for all tested materials. A suitable explanation for this result is the abrasion of three bodies caused for toothbrushing 17,24,28,29,[32][33][34] . This wear is probably due to the fluoride toothpaste and toothbrush association action during the oral hygiene, whereas the volunteers accomplished the brushing of the appliance by three times a day.…”

“…The scans were 1.5 mm in length, and the data were filtered with a cutoff of 0.08 mm. Two additional measurements were accomplished by rotating the disk in an angle of 90 degrees, and a mean value was obtained from the three measurements 17 .…”

“…Thus, experiments that evaluate the wear resistance 15,16 is very important for the success of the restorative treatment, whereas this properties can provide the increase of surface roughness 17,18 , which can promote plaque accumulation, gingival irritation, poor esthetics and color changes, as well as, recurrent decay 19,20 . In the context, the wear resistance can be evaluated through mass loss and superficial smothness 18 of the material.…”

Influência de bebidas e escovação nas propriedades físicas de uma resina composta

“…99 Em relação à microdureza, estudos prévios 52,134 têm demonstrado resultados conflitantes na correlação entre dureza do material e resistência ao desgaste. Além do mais, este processo é complexo, dependendo das condições encontradas na cavidade bucal, incluindo os movimentos mandibulares e contatos prematuros, 23 bem como a ação da escovação 34,67 e dos componentes químicos, térmicos e biológicos que podem afetar o corpo do material e, dessa forma, levar ao desgaste superficial. 119 A quantidade de desgaste sofrida pela resina composta está diretamente relacionada à sua composição, desde o tipo e tamanho da carga 106 até a adição de partículas à matriz e grau de adesão desta à porção orgânica.…”