Evaluation of Surface Roughness of Microhybrid and Nanofilled Composites after pH-Cycling and Simulated Toothbrushing

Josealdo Tonholo; Roberta Alves Pinto Moura Penteado; José Ginaldo Júnior; Milton Fernando de Andrade Silva; Celso da Silva Queiroz; Vanessa Cavalli; Marcos Augusto do Rego; Priscila Christiane Suzy Liporoni

doi:10.5005/jcdp-11-6-17

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

Online First

Evaluation of Surface Roughness of Microhybrid and Nanofilled Composites after pH-Cycling and Simulated Toothbrushing

Josealdo Tonholo, Roberta Alves Pinto Moura Penteado, José Ginaldo Júnior, Milton Fernando de Andrade Silva, Celso da Silva Queiroz, Vanessa Cavalli, Marcos Augusto do Rego, Priscila Christiane Suzy Liporoni

Citation Information : Tonholo J, Penteado RA, Júnior JG, de Andrade Silva MF, da Silva Queiroz C, Cavalli V, Rego MA, Liporoni PC. Evaluation of Surface Roughness of Microhybrid and Nanofilled Composites after pH-Cycling and Simulated Toothbrushing. J Contemp Dent Pract 2010; 11 (6):17-24.

DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-11-6-17

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 01-12-2010

ARTICLE
REFERENCES

Abstract

Aim

This study evaluated the surface roughness patterns of two resin-based composite restorative materials, a microhybrid (Filtek Z250, 3M ESPE) and a nanofilled (Filtek Supreme, 3M ESPE), subjected to a regimen that simulated dynamic pH-cycling and toothbrushing.

Methods and Materials

Twelve standardized cylindrical specimens of each resin-based composite material were prepared, finished, and mechanically polished. The experimental units were submitted to a pH-cycling regimen followed by 50,000 toothbrushing cycles, after which the surface roughness was measured using an atomic force microscope (AFM). AFM surface roughness was evaluated at three intervals: (1) immediately after specimen preparation (baseline), (2) after pH-cycling, and (3) after simulated toothbrushing. The results were then analyzed using a split-plot design and followed by linear regression and a Tukey's test at a significance level of p<0.05.

Results

The results obtained indicated that simulated toothbrushing provoked a remarkable increase in surface roughness for both types of composite resins tested (p=0.0031). However, pH-cycling did not alter the surface of the composite under the conditions of this experiment.

Conclusions

Based on the results obtained, it was concluded that simulated toothbrushing was capable of increasing the surface roughness of the microhybrid (Filtek Z250) and the nanofilled (Filtek Supreme) composites tested.

Clinical Significance

Surface roughness of nanofilled and microhybrid composites is significantly increased after toothbrushing, although pH-cycling, as tested in this study, does not appear to affect the morphology of either composite material.

Citation

Penteado RAPM, Tonholo J, Ginaldo Júnior J, Silva MFA, Queiroz CS, Cavalli V, Rego MA, Liporoni PCS. Evaluation of Surface Roughness of Microhybrid and Nanofilled Composites after pH-Cycling and Simulated Toothbrushing. J Contemp Dent Pract [Internet]. 2010 December; 11(6):017-024. Available from: http://www.thejcdp.com/journal/view/volume11- issue6-liporoni

PDF Share

Wear and fatigue behavior of nano-structured dental resin composites. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2006;78(1):196–203.
How to qualify and validate wear simulation devices and methods. Dent Mater. 2006; 22(8):712-34.
Filler features and their effects on wear and degree of conversion of particulate dental resin composites. Biomaterials. 2005;26(24):4932–7.
Shear punch strength and flexural strength of model composites with varying filler volume fraction, particle size and silanation. Dent Mater. 2003;19(3):206–11.
Characterization of nanofilled compared to universal and microfilled composites. Dent Mater. 2007; 23(1):51-9.
Changes in surface characteristics of dental resin composites after polishing. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2005; 16(4):347-53.
An application of nanotechnology in advanced dental materials. J Am Dent Assoc. 2003; 134(10):1382-90.
Direct applications of a nanocomposite resin system: Part 1— The evolution of contemporary composite materials. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent. 2004; 16(6):417-22.
The effects of alcoholic beverages on composite wear. Dent Mater. 2000; 16(1):62-7.
Surface roughness assessment of resin-based materials during brushing preceded by pH-cycling simulations. Oper Dent. 2001; 26(6):576-84.
Influence of pH and storage time on the sorption and solubility behaviour of three composite resin materials. J Dent. 2001; 29(1):35-41.
Environmental damage and occlusal contact area wear of composite restoratives. J Oral Rehabil. 2002; 29(1):87-97.
Influence of pH environment on polymer based dental material properties. J Dent. 2005; 33(2):91-8.
Effect of topical fluoride application on toothbrushing abrasion of resin composites. Dent Mater. 2006; 22(4):308-13.
Wear resistance of packable resin composites after simulated toothbrushing test. J Esthet Rest Dent. 2004; 16(5):303-14.
Evaluation of weight loss and surface roughness of compomers after simulated toothbrushing abrasion test. J Appl Oral Sci. 2005; 13(2):131-5.
Compositional and morphological imaging of CO2 laser irradiated human teeth by low vacuum SEM, confocal laser scanning microscopy and atomic force microscopy. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2001; 12(3):189-94.
The in vitro effect of glass-ionomer cement restoration on enamel subjected to a demineralization and remineralization model. Quintessence Int. 1992; 23(2):143-7.
Enamel mineralization by calcium-containingbicarbonate toothpastes: assessment by various techniques. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2004; 25(9 Suppl 1):14-24.
Influence of storage regime prior to abrasion on surface topography of restorative materials. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2003; 65(2):227-32.
Surface roughness of nanofill and nanohybrid resin composites after polishing and brushing. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2007; 19(5):265-73.
In vitro toothbrush-dentifrice abrasion of two restorative composites. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2005; 17(3):172-80.

PDF Share