Toothbrush Abrasion of Resin Composites with Different Filler Concepts

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate the effect of tooth brushing wear with and without calcium carbonate slurry on four commercial resin composites based on different filler concepts. Materials and methods:One nanofiller composite MI FIL (MFI, GC), one conventional hybrid type Venus (VEN) and two nanohybrid composites Venus Diamond (VED) and Venus Pearl (VEP) all from Heraeus Kulzer were examined. Forty beam-shaped specimens (12 × 3 × 3 mm) from each product were prepared and subdivided in two equal groups for pregrinding on SiC paper #600 and #4000 respectively. Ten specimens of each pre-ground group were subjected to toothbrush abrasion with calcium carbonate slurry, and 10 to toothbrushing with water only. The samples were submitted to five subsequent runs of 10,000 brushing strokes. Depth of wear and surface roughness (Ra) were measured with a profilometer after each 10 k strokes. Specimens after 50 k strokes were assessed by SEM. Additionally, the KHN (0.25 N/15 s) and the degree of conversion (DC) were determined. Data analysis was done by linear regression and ANOVA followed by Tukey's post-hoc test (p < 0.05). Results: Toothbrushing with abrasive slurry produced significantly different wear depths: VEN > MIF > VEP > VED.Linear relationships between depth of wear and number of cycles (r 2 > 0.94) were established for each material. Pregrinding with SiC #4000 resulted in less wear than pregrinding with #600. Ra figures were much higher for VED than for the other materials tested. MIF and VEN were uniformly abraded, whereas the largest glass fillers in VED protruded from the surroundings and the prepolymer particles in VEP were deeper abraded than the bulk of the material. Toothbrushing with water only revealed not measurable wear. Roughness Ra was practically unchanged when compared with the preground samples before challenging with toothbrushes. Ranking by KHN was: MIF < VEN, VEP < VED, by DC: MIF < VEN < VEP < VED. Conclusion:Filler concepts and monomer compositions affect wear and roughness of resin composites when tooth brushed with abrasive slurry. Toothbrushing without abrasive medium produced neither wear nor roughness. Careful polishing of resin composite restorations is an important determinant of wear and surface roughness.

Surface Roughness of Bulk Fill Composite after Simulated Toothbrushing with Different Dentifrices

“…and Bulk Fill Flowable Based composite (Dentsply). Although the mentioned later two types of composite fillers have same average cluster size, it is clear that the non-aggregated zirconia/silica cluster filler presented in Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative (3M, ESPE) can resist the toothbrushing abrasion more effectively than triethylene glycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA) presented in Bulk Fill SDR (Dentsply) [32]. Notably, in the present study, the Tetric N-Ceram bulk fill (Ivoclar Vivadent) demonstrated more statistical significant differences in surface roughness compared to other two types of composites.…”

Inappropriate Toothbrushes Selection Alter Composite Dental Material Restoration Surface Roughness: A Preliminary Study

“…Individual oral hygiene procedures by using tooth brush also play a significant role. Brushing time and the composite's microstructure and composition has an influence to the degree of roughness [9,10,22,24,25].…”

Effects of Toothbrush Hardness on in vitro Wear and Roughness of Composite Resins

“…Research has shown that toothbrushing without dentifrice had almost no effect on wear of hard tissues. [3][4][5][6] Commonly, it is believed that hard toothbrushes cause more wear on dental hard tissues and restorative materials than soft ones. However, unexpectedly several research reports confirmed, that hard toothbrushes in combination with abrasive toothpaste caused less abrasion than soft brushes with dentifrice.…”