The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 21 , ISSUE 5 ( May, 2020 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Effect of Probiotic Mouthrinses on Surface Microhardness of Esthetic Restorative Materials

Bashaer Altwaim, Fouad Salama, Shahad Alogayyel

Keywords : Laboratory research, Microhardness, Mouthrinse, Probiotic, Restorative materials

Citation Information : Altwaim B, Salama F, Alogayyel S. Effect of Probiotic Mouthrinses on Surface Microhardness of Esthetic Restorative Materials. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020; 21 (5):543-548.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2809

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 30-05-2020

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim: To assess the influence of three probiotic mouthrinses on the microhardness of three esthetic materials used for teeth restorations. Materials and methods: Thirty specimens of each material: conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC), resin-modified glass ionomer, and resin composite were randomly assigned to three groups. Surface microhardness was measured at baseline. The specimens were immersed in probiotic mouthrinses, group I: (P2 probiotic power), group II: (Probioclean), and group III (BōKU natural). Microhardness was measured after 21 and 63 minutes of immersion which is comparable with 3 and 9 weeks of mouthrinse use every day, respectively. Measurements of microhardness were completed using Micro Vickers testing machine with a 200 g load applied for a duration of 15 seconds. Results: The microhardness change of the three restorative materials reveled statistically significant differences in all mouthrinse groups (p = 0.001). BōKU natural mouthrinse decreased microhardness significantly in all restorative materials (p < 0.05). However, Probioclean mouthrinse was associated with an increase in microhardness in all restorative materials. The effect of P2 probiotic power mouthrinse varied depending on time cycles and the restorative material. The mean difference in mouthrinse groups of resin composite was highest in BōKU natural at immersion time of 63 minutes. While no mean difference was seen in P2 probiotic power group at immersion time of 21 minutes which had no effect on the microhardness of resin composite. Conclusion: Surface microhardness was affected by immersion in probiotic mouthrinses. The BōKU natural mouthrinse had the highest reduction, while resin composite showed the least change in surface microhardness. Clinical significance: There is lack of studies that investigated the effect of probiotics mouthrinses on the surface properties of restorative materials. This study showed evidence that some of the tested probiotic mouthrinses in this study decreased the microhardness of the tested tooth-colored restorative materials after immersion for 21 and 63 minutes which is equivalent to 3 and 9 weeks of everyday use.


PDF Share
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.