The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 17 , ISSUE 12 ( December, 2016 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Surface Hardness of Dental Composite Resin Restorations in Response to Preventive Agents

Khalid H Al-Samadani

Citation Information : Al-Samadani KH. Surface Hardness of Dental Composite Resin Restorations in Response to Preventive Agents. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016; 17 (12):978-984.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1967

Published Online: 01-12-2016

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2016; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Introduction

To assess the impact of using preventive mouthwash agents on the surface hardness of various resins composites.

Materials and methods

Hundred specimens were prepared from five types of composite resin material in a Teflon mold. Five specimens from each type of restorative materials (Herculite XRV Ultra, Estelite Σ Quick, Z Hermack, Versa Comp Sultan, and Empress Direct IPS) were evaluated posttreatment with immersion in four types of preventive mouthwashes gels and rinses – group 1: Flocare gel (0.4% stannous fluoride), group 2: Pascal gel (topical APF fluoride), group 3: Pro-relief mouthwash (Na fluoride), and group 4: Plax Soin mouthwash (Na fluoride) – at 37°C in a dark glass container at 24, 48, and 72 hours. Surface hardness measurement was made for each tested material. Statistically, we analyzed the mean values with one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's test, with significance level of p < 0.05.

Results

All composite resin materials showed decrease in their surface hardness with the time elapsed (24, 48, and 72 hours) postimmersion in the preventive mouthwashes and gels except the Herculite XRV Ultra and Versa Comp Sultan materials. Flocare gel group showed increase in the surface hardness after 48 hours of immersion than the other periods and in Estelite Σ Quick after 72 hours. There was significant differences in all materials tested with the immersion in the preventive mouthwashes and gels, such as Flocare gel (0.4% stannous fluoride), Pro-relief mouthwash (Na fluoride), and Plax Soin mouthwash (Na fluoride) except Pascal gel (topical APF fluoride) (p > 0.05), at time intervals mentioned earlier (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

The effect of preventive mouthwashes and gels on resin composite materials was decreased surface hardness with the time elapse of immersion for all materials except the Flocare gel group, which contains 0.4% stannous fluoride as a preventive ingredient increases the surface hardness after 48 h for Herculite XRV Ultra and Versa Comp Sultan and Estelite Σ Quick after 72 hours.

Clinical significance

The preventive agents in the form of mouthwash and gel are used to prevent oral diseases that affect the surface hardness of composite resin, and this leads to occlusion, color stability, and surface roughness.

How to cite this article

Al-Samadani KH, Surface Hardness of Dental Composite Resin Restorations in Response to Preventive Agents. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(12):978-984


PDF Share
  1. Color stability of restorative materials in response to Arabic coffee, Turkish coffee and Nescafe. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013 Jul;14(4):681-690.
  2. The effect of different types of oral mouth rinses on the hardness of silorane-based and nano-hybrid composites. Saudi J Oral Sci 2014;1(2):105-109.
  3. Current trends in dental composites. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 1995;6(4):302-318.
  4. Effects of mouthwashes on Knoop and surface roughness of dental composites after different immersion times. Braz Oral Res 2011 Mar-Apr;25(2):168-173.
  5. Adverse effects of mouthwash use. A review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1995 Oct;80(4):432-439.
  6. The effects of different mouthrinses on microhardness of tooth-coloured restorative materials. J Pak Dent Assoc 2005;14(3):150-153.
  7. The effect of mouthrinses on surface hardness and weight change of some aesthetic restorative material. J Pak Dent Assoc 2005;14:84-89.
  8. Environmental damage and occlusal contact area wear of composite restoratives. J Oral Rehabil 2002 Jan;29(1):87-97.
  9. An application of nanotechnology in advanced dental materials. J Am Dent Assoc 2003 Oct;34(10):1382-1390.
  10. Water and abrasive effects on three-body wear of composites. J Dent Res 1991 Jul;70(7):1074-1081.
  11. Surface hardness change of restorative filling materials stored in saliva. Dent Mater 2001 Jan;17(1):34-39.
  12. The effects of mouthrinses on microhardness and colour stability of aesthetic restorative materials. J Oral Rehabil 2002 Sep;29(9):895-901.
  13. The effect mouthrinses on salivary sorption, solubility and surface degradation of nanofilled and hybrid resin composite. Oper Dent 2010 Jan-Feb;35(1):105-111.
  14. Effect of different mouthrinses on Knoop hardness of a restorative composite. Am J Dent 2005 Dec;18(6):338-340.
  15. Influence of PH and storage time on the sorption and solubility behaviour of three composite resin materials. J Dent 2001 Jan;29(1):35-41.
  16. A comparative effect of mouthwashes with different alcohol concentrations on surface hardness, sorption and solubility of composite resins. Oral Health Dent Manage 2014 Jun;13(2):502-506.
  17. Degradation of polymeric restorative materials subjected to a high caries challenge. Dent Mater 2011 Mar;27(3):244-252.
  18. G. Restorative dental materials. St. Louis, MO: Mosby-Year Book; 1993. p. 248-270.
  19. Effects of mouthrinses on color stability of resin composites. Eur J Dent 2008 Oct;2:247-253.
  20. Hygroscopic and hydrolytic effects in dental polymer networks. Dent Mater 2006 Mar;22(3):211-222.
  21. Effect of resin hydrophilicity and water storage on resin strength. Biomaterials 2004 Nov;25(26):5789-5796.
  22. Attritional wear and abrasive surface alterations of composite resins materials in vitro. J Dent 2002 Feb-Mar;30(2-3):119-127.
  23. The surface hardness value of a light cured hybrid composite resin after 12 hours immersion in three alcohol-free mouthwashes. J Dentomaxillofac Radiol Pathol Surg 2013;2(4):1-6.
  24. Advances in nanotechnology for restorative dentistry. Materials 2015;8(2):717-731.
  25. Nanomechanical characterization of exfoliated and retained deciduous incisors. Technol Health Care 2014 Nov;22(6):785-793.
  26. A comparison of dental restorative materials and mineralized dental tissues for surface nanomechanical properties. Life Sci J 2014 Jan;11:19-24.
  27. Nano-mechanical evaluation of dental hard tissues using indentation technique. World Appl Sci J 2013;28(10):1393-1399.
  28. ; Powers, J.; Craig's restorative dental materials. 13th ed. St. Louis, MO; Elsevier. Mosby Co; 2012. p. 48-190.
  29. Effect of professionally applied topical fluorides on surface hardness of composite-based restoratives. Oper Dent 2002 Nov-Dec;27(6):576-581.
  30. Therapeutic roles of fluoride released from restorative dental materials. Fluoride 2015 Jul-Sep;48(3):184-194.
  31. Oral and dental delivery of fluoride: a review. Fluoride 2015 Jul-Sep;48(3):195-204.
  32. Modifications in glass ionomer cements: nano-sized fillers and bioactive nanoceramics. Int J Mol Sci 2016 Jul;17(7):1134.
  33. Effects of surface pre-reacted glass particles on fluoride release of dental restorative materials. World Appl Sci J 2013;28(4):457-462.
  34. Effect of mouthrinses on microhardness and wear of composite and compomer restoratives. Oper Dent 2003 Nov-Dec;28(6):740-746.
  35. Topical fluoride and glass ionomer microhardness. Am J Dent 1995 Jun;8(3):134-136.
  36. Effect of five commercial mouthrinses on the microhardness and color stability of two resin composite restorative materials. Aust J Basic Appl Sci 2007;1(4):667-674.
  37. Effect of different solutions on Knoop hardness of indirect composite resins. Dentistry 2014;4(3):208.
  38. Color stability, surface roughness and microhardness of composites submitted to mouthrinsing action. J Appl Oral Sci 2012 Mar-Apr;20(2):200-205.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.