Effect of tooth brushing and thermal cycling on a surface change of ceromers finished with different methods

Abstract

This in vitro study evaluated the effect of tooth brushing and thermal cycling on the surface lustre and surface roughness of three ceromer systems treated with different surface finishing methods. The ceromers studied were: (1). Artglass, (2). Targis, (3). Sculpture and (4). the control group, Z 100. Half of the Targis and Sculpture groups were polished and the rest were coated with staining and glazing solution, respectively. All specimens were subjected to thermocycling 10000 times. Tooth brushing abrasion tests were performed in a customized tooth-brushing machine with 500 g weight applied on a back-and-forth cycle for 20000 repetitions. The lustre determined by measuring the light reflection area and the average roughness was compared between groups and between pre- and post-test values. All materials showed a lower lustre and rougher surface after thermocycling and tooth brushing (P < 0.05). All ceromer specimens, except glazed Sculpture, showed a higher lustre and similar roughness to the control group. The post-brushing results revealed that glazed Sculpture presented discretely fallen out glaze coatings and had maximum change. However, stained Targis showed minimum change (P < 0.05) and polished Targis presented more changes than that of the staining treatment. It is therefore concluded that the glaze coatings for Sculpture don't exhibit long-term durability, while stain coatings for Targis acted like a protective layer.

Toothbrush Abrasion of Resin Composites with Different Filler Concepts

“…The average force reported was 3.3 N, with a wide spreading from 1.4 to 7.2 N. Similar brushing forces were found by other authors. 23,24 On the basis of these reports and in agreement with Cho et al 25 and…”

Resistance of nanofill and nanohybrid resin composites to toothbrush abrasion with calcium carbonate slurry

“…In a clinical trial on 94 patients the average toothbrushing force registered was 350 g with a range from 140 through 720 g 23) . We decided in agreement with Cho et al 24) and Senawongse and Pongprueksa 18) to use a 500 g brushing force as a means to presumably accelerate wear in our simulator.…”

The influence of mouthrinses and simulated toothbrushing on the surface roughness of a nanofilled composite resin

“…11,13,14 In non-stressbearing areas, the main causal factors of texture changes are the relationship between biodegradation and oral hygiene procedures. 15 Thus, regular prophylactic procedures, such as toothbrushing, the use of mouthrinses, or a combination of these, may produce deleterious side- effects on the surface and physical properties of restorative materials. 16 However, information evaluating the potential effects of mouthrinses associated with toothbrushing of composite resins is needed, because this could affect the maintenance of the surface smoothness of the restoration.…”