The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 16 , ISSUE 10 ( October, 2015 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Surface Texture and Optical Properties of Self-Adhering Composite Materials after Toothbrush Abrasion

Caroline Veiga Malavasi, Elisa Maria Macedo, Karoline da Costa Souza, Guilherme Ferreira Rego, Luis Felipe Jochims Schneider, Larissa Maria Cavalcante

Citation Information : Malavasi CV, Macedo EM, da Costa Souza K, Rego GF, Schneider LF, Cavalcante LM. Surface Texture and Optical Properties of Self-Adhering Composite Materials after Toothbrush Abrasion. J Contemp Dent Pract 2015; 16 (10):775-782.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1756

Published Online: 00-10-2015

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2015; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Results

Tukey's test ascertained that toothbrush abrasion resulted in rougher and matte surfaces for all composites tested. Filtek Z350 presented better gloss retention after abrasion. On surface roughness evaluation, there was no statistical difference between Fusio Liquid Dentin and Filtek Z350 resins (p > 0.05). Vertise Flow resin showed better color stability (ΔE), than the other two materials.

Conclusion

Nanofilled material presented better gloss retention but it did not produce the best results in aspects related to surface roughness and color stability compared to self-adhering composites.

Clinical significance

A simulation of degradation process by using toothbrush abrasion produced a rougher and matte surface in all composites tested. The surface texture was not only related to filler's amount present in materials, but also with the organic matrix composition of them. The results suggested that the constant development of new materials, seeking for a technical simplification, seems an innovative attraction for dentist's clinical routine, even though larger studies are necessary to promote to everyone a better understanding and improvement of action and effectiveness of this new class of materials.

How to cite this article

Malavasi CV, Macedo EM, da Costa Souza K, Rego GF, Schneider LFJ, Cavalcante LM. Surface Texture and Optical Properties of Self-Adhering Composite Materials after Toothbrush Abrasion. J Contemp Dent Pract 2015;16(10):775-782.


PDF Share
  1. Resin composite—state of the art. Dent Mater 2011;27:29-38.
  2. Bonding and sealing ability of a new self-adhering flowable composite resin in class I restorations. Clin Oral Invest 2013;17:1497-1506.
  3. Evaluation of a selfadhering flowable composite in terms of micro-shear bond strength and microleakage. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica 2013;71:541-546.
  4. A new generation of self-etching adhesives: comparison with traditional acid etch technique. J Orofac Orthop 2008;69:78-93.
  5. Bonding effectiveness of self-adhesive composites to dentin and enamel. Dent Mater 2013;29:221-230.
  6. Comparative study on adhesive performance of functional monomers. J Dent Res 2004;83:454-458.
  7. Characterization of first-generation flowable composites. J Am Dent Assoc 1998;129:567-577.
  8. Contraction stress, elastic modulus, and degree of conversion of three flowable composites. Eur J Oral Sci 2011;119:241-245.
  9. The effect of the elastic modulus of low-viscosity resins on the microleakage of class V resin composite restorations under occlusal loading. Dent Mater J 2010;29:324-329.
  10. Self-adhesive restoratives as pit and fissure sealants: a comparative laboratory study. Dent Mater 2013;29:752-762.
  11. Bonding performance of a newly developed step-less all-in-one system on dentin. Dent Mater 2013;32:203-211.
  12. The influence of nanoscale inorganic content over optical and surface properties of model composites. J Dent 2013;41:e45-e53.
  13. Surface characterization of modern resin composites: a multitechnique approach. Am J Dent 2005;18:95-100.
  14. Evaluation of surface characteristics of dental composites using profilometry, scanning electron, atomic force microscopy and gloss-meter. J Mat Sci Mat Med 2007;18:155-163.
  15. Changes in gloss after simulated generalized wear of composite resins. J Prost Dent 2005;94:370-376.
  16. Longitudinal evaluation of simulated toothbrushing on the roughness and optical stability of microfilled, microhybrid and nanofilled resinbased composites. J Dent 2013;41:1081-1090.
  17. Color stability over time of three resin-based restorative materials stored dry and in artificial saliva. J Esthet Restor Dent 2014;26:279-287.
  18. Effects of different polishing methods on color stability of resin composites after accelerated aging. Dent Mat 2013;32:58-67.
  19. Color stability of different composite materials. J Prost Dent 2013;109:378-383.
  20. Color stability of ten resinbased restorative materials. J Esthet Restor Dent 2012;24:185-199.
  21. Difference scaling of gloss: nonlinearity, binocularity and constancy. J Vis 2004;4:711-720.
  22. Polishing and toothbrushing alters the surface roughness and gloss of composite resins. Dent Mat 2014;33:599-606.
  23. Comparison of the color stability of ten new-generation composites: an in vitro study. Dent Mater 1994;10:353-362.
  24. Surface deterioration of dental materials after simulated toothbrushing in relation to brushing time and load. Dent Mater 2010;26:306-319.
  25. Abrasive finishing and polishing in restorative dentistry: a state-of-the-art review. Dent Clin N Am 2007;51:379-397.
  26. The in vivo perception of roughness of restorations. Brit Dent J 2004;196:42-45.
  27. Comparison of different finishing/polishing systems on surface roughness and gloss of resin composites. J Dent 2011;39:e9-e17.
  28. Surface roughness of novel resin composites polished with one-step systems. Oper Dent 2007;32:185-192.
  29. The effect of toothbrushing on surface gloss of resin composites. Am J Dent 2012;25:54-58.
  30. Surface characterization of current composites after toothbrush abrasion. Dent Mater 2013;32:75-82.
  31. The effect of various dentifrices on surface roughness and gloss of resin composites. J Dent 2010;38(Suppl 2):e123-e128.
  32. New composite resins: comparison of their resistance to toothbrush abrasion and characteristics of abraded surfaces. J Am Dent Assoc 1982;105(4):633-635.
  33. The effect of toothbrushing on a hybrid composite resin. J Prosthet Dent 1991;66(4):498-500.
  34. Color stability of microfilled, microhybrid and nanocomposite resins—an in vitro study. J Dent 2010;38:e137-e142.
  35. Clinical wear performance of eight experimental dental composites over 3 years determined by two measuring methods. Eur J Oral Sci 2001;109:273-281.
  36. Filler features and their effects on wear and degree of conversion of particulate dental resin composites. Biomat 2005;26(24):4932-4937.
  37. Effect of resin monomer composition on toothbrush wear resistance. J Oral Rehabil 1998;25(4):264-268.
  38. Effect of brushing and accelerated ageing on color stability and surface roughness of composites. J Dent 2013;41:e54-e61.
  39. Luminancebased specular gloss characterization. J Opt Soc Am 2011;28:1322-1330.
  40. Gloss as an aspect of the measurement of appearance. J Opt Soc Am 2006;23:22-33.
  41. Effect of surface roughness on stain resistance of dental resin composites. J Esthet Restor Dent 2005;17(2):102-108.
  42. An experiment in visual scaling of small color differences. Color Res Application 1979;4:83-91.
  43. Color stability of dental composite resin materials for crown and bridge veneers. Dent Mat 1987;3:246-251.
  44. Assessment of appearance match by visual observation and clinical colorimetry. J Dent Res 1989;68:819-822.
  45. Change of optical properties of contemporary resin composites after 1 week and 1 month water ageing. J Dent 2013;41(Suppl 5):e62-69.
  46. Influence of water sorption on resin composite color and color variation amongst various composite brands with identical shade code: an in vitro evaluation. J Dent 2011;39(Supp 11):e37-e44.
  47. Color stability and polimerization behavior of direct esthetic restorations. J Esthet Restor Dent 2014;26:288-295.
  48. Colour stability, opacity and cross-link density of composites submitted to accelerated artificial aging. Eur J Prost Rest Dent 2010;18:89-93.
  49. Self-adhesive restoratives as pit and fissure sealants: a comparative laboratory study. Dent Mat 2013;9:752-762.
  50. Clinical relevance of dentine bonding formulation and testing. J Dent 1994;22:73-81.
  51. Effects of functional monomers and photo-initiators on the degree of conversion of a dental adhesive. Acta Biomater 2012;8:1928-1934.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.