The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 21 , ISSUE 3 ( March, 2020 ) > List of Articles


Evaluation of the Impact of Acidic Drink on the Microhardness of Different Esthetic Restorative Materials: An In Vitro Study

Shabna Moyin, Banibrata Lahiri, Preethi Nagdev, Neelagiri Nitish Kumar

Keywords : Acidic drink, Erosion, Esthetic restorative materials, Surface microhardness

Citation Information : Moyin S, Lahiri B, Nagdev P, Kumar NN. Evaluation of the Impact of Acidic Drink on the Microhardness of Different Esthetic Restorative Materials: An In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020; 21 (3):233-237.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2753

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-10-2018

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; The Author(s).


Aim: The aim of this study was to assess the impact of acidic drink on the microhardness of different esthetic restorative materials. Materials and methods: Sixty samples (20 samples of each group) were prepared. group I: nanohybrid ormocer-based composite, group II: glasiosite compomer, and group III: nanoceramic composite. A cylindrical aluminum mold of 5 mm depth and 10 mm internal diameter was used to prepare the samples. All the esthetic restorative samples were submerged in 25 mL of acidic drink (Coca-Cola) for 10 minutes each day up to 15 days. The microhardness of each sample was measured using a Vickers diamond intender. These values were matched with baseline, 7th day, and 15th day for final microhardness values. Results: The mean surface microhardness of 61.13 ± 0.82 was shown by group I, which was slightly more than that in group II (59.65 ± 1.16) and group III (59.22 ± 1.30). Analysis of covariance did not show any statistically significant difference between the groups. The samples in group III showed the highest reduction in surface microhardness value after immersion into acidic drink, followed by group II and group I on 7th day and 15th day. A statistically significant difference (p < 0.001) was found on 7th day. Conclusion: The present study concludes that the esthetic restorative material—nanohybrid ormocer-based composite—showed the finest behavior both before and after being dipped in the acidic drink followed next by glasiosite compomer and nanoceramic composite. Clinical significance: The various esthetic restorative materials with different physical characteristics and colors are marketed in numerous ways. Nevertheless, all dental restorative materials show surface degradation under acidic conditions over a period of time. So, it helps to know the surface microhardness changes of various esthetic restorative materials upon repeated exposure to acidic beverages.

  1. Veena Kumari R, Pradeep PR, Aswathi S, et al. Evaluation of surface roughness of composite resins with three different polishing systems and the erosive potential with apple cider vinegar using atomic force microscopy-an in vitro study. Acta Sci Dent Sci 2019;3(3):08–16.
  2. Nasim I, Neelakantan P, Sujeer R, et al. Color stability of microfilled, microhybrid and nanocomposite resins—an in vitro study. J Dent 2010;38(Suppl 2):e137–e142. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2010.05.020.
  3. Aguiar TR, Gaglianone LA, Mathias P. An overview of the impact of lifestyle behaviors on the operative dentistry. J Interdiscipl Med Dent Sci 2014;2:128.
  4. Silva KG, Pedrini D, Delbem AC, et al. Effect of pH variations in a cycling model on the properties of restorative materials. Oper Dent 2007;32(4):328–335. DOI: 10.2341/06-89.
  5. Çökük N, Kaki GD, Recen D, et al. The effects of pH changes on the microhardness of three fluoride releasing restorative materials: an in vitro Study. EC Dent Sci 2018;17(9):1645–1651.
  6. Yanikoğlu N, Duymus ZY, Yilmaz B. Effects of different solutions on the surface hardness of composite resin materials. Dent Mater J 2009;28(3):344–351. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.28.344.
  7. Erdemir U, Yildiz E, Eren MM, et al. Surface hardness Evaluation of different composite resin materials: influence of sports and energy drinks immersion after a short-term period. J Appl Oral Sci 2013;21(2):124–131. DOI: 10.1590/1678-7757201302185.
  8. Okada K, Tosaki S, Hirota K, et al. Surface hardness change of restorative filling materials stored in saliva. Dent Mater 2001;17(1): 34–39. DOI: 10.1016/S0109-5641(00)00053-1.
  9. Hooper S, West NX, Pickles MJ, et al. Investigation of erosion and abrasion on enamel and dentine: a model in situ using toothpastes of different abrasivity. J Clin Periodontol 2003;30(9):802–808. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-051X.2003.00367.x.
  10. Kaur S, Makkar S, Kumar R, et al. Comparative evaluation of surface properties of enamel and different esthetic restorative materials under erosive and abrasive challenges: an in vitro study. Indian J Dent 2015;6(4):172–180. DOI: 10.4103/0975-962X.165047.
  11. Poggio C, Viola M, Mirando M, et al. Microhardness of different esthetic restorative materials: evaluation and comparison after exposure to acidic drink. Dent Res J 2018;15:166–172. DOI: 10.4103/1735-3327.231863.
  12. Rizzante FAP, Duque JA, Duarte MAH, et al. Polymerization shrinkage, microhardness and depth of cure of bulk fill resin composites. Dent Mater J 2019;38(3):403–410. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2018-063.
  13. Thomaidis S, Kakaboura A, Mueller WD, et al. Mechanical properties of contemporary composite resins and their interrelations. Dent Mater 2013;29:132–141. DOI: 10.1016/
  14. Baeshen H, Alturki BN, Albishi WW, et al. Mechanical and physical properties of two different resin-based materials: a comparative study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2017;18:905–910. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2147.
  15. Cavalcante LM, Schneider LF, Silikas N, et al. Surface integrity of solvent-challenged ormocer-matrix composite. Dent Mater 2011;27:173–179. DOI: 10.1016/
  16. Leung R, Fan P, Johnston W. Post-irradiation polymerization of visible light-activated composite resin. J Dent Res 1983;62(3):363–365. DOI: 10.1177/00220345830620031201.
  17. Marghalani HY. Post-irradiation Vickers microhardness development of novel resin composites. Mat Res 2010;13(1):81–87. DOI: 10.1590/S1516-14392010000100017.
  18. Al-Taie LA, Al-Aubaydi AF, Al-Shamma AM. The effect of pepsi cola beverage on surface roughness of two composite resins (in vitro study). 2010;7(1):9–14.
  19. Prakki A, Cilli R, Mondelli RF, et al. Influence of pH environment on polymer based dental material properties. J Dent 2005;33(2):91–98. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2004.08.004.
  20. Narsimha VV. Effect of cola on surface microhardness and marginal integrity of resin modified glass ionomer and compomer restoration-an in vitro study. People's J Scientific Res 2011;4(2):34–40.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.