Effects of cyclic acid challenge on the surface roughness of various flowable resin composites
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of cyclic acid challenge on the surface roughness (Ra) of various flowable resin composites.
Materials and Methods: For this study, G-ænial® Universal Injectable, Beautifil Injectable X, Filtek™ Z350XT Flowable Restorative, and Filtek™ Z350XT Universal Restorative resin composites (Shade A2) were used. Twenty disc-shaped specimens were prepared per group and randomly divided into - control group and cyclic acid treated group. After specimen preparation, the surface roughness of the control group was measured with a contact profilometer. For the acid treated group, the specimens were immersed in 0.5% citric acid (pH=2.3) for 1 minute then in distilled water for 1 minute with a 10-second media-to-media transfer time. This cycle was repeated for 1,095 cycles to simulate 1 year of clinical acid exposoure. Following which, the surface roughness of the specimens were measured. The surface of the composite resins were also observed using SEM.
Results: For the control groups, there was no significant difference in Ra value among the various control resin composites (p=0.179), except Beautifil Injectable X. The highest Ra value was observed with Beautifil Injectable X (0.0448µm). After the cyclic acid challenge, only Beautifil Injectable X (0.0926µm) presented a statistically significant difference in Ra value when compared to the control. No significant differences in Ra values were observed before and after the cyclic acid challenge with other resin composites. All specimens showed a relatively smooth surface topography with the control and acid treated conditions, except Beautifil Injectable X which presented a comparatively rougher surface.
Conclusion: Surface roughness of some flowable resin composites was impacted by cyclic acid challenge, especially Beautifil Injectable X.
Article Details
References
Baroudi K, Rodrigues JC. Flowable Resin Composites: A Systematic Review and Clinical Considerations. J Clin Diagn Res 2015; 9: 18-24.
Bayne SC, Thompson JY, Swift EJ, Stamatiades P, Wilkerson M. A characterization of first-generation flowable composites. J Am Dent Assoc 1998; 129: 567-77.
Burgess JO, Walker R, Davidson JM. Posterior resin-based composite: review of the literature. Pediatr Dent 2002; 24: 465-79.
Carlén A, Nikdel K, Wennerberg A, Holmberg K, Olsson J. Surface characteristics and in vitro biofilm formation on glass ionomer and composite resin. Biomaterials 2001; 22: 481-7.
Ono M, Nikaido T, Ikeda M, Imai S, Hanada N, Tagami J, et al. Surface properties of resin composite materials relative to biofilm formation. Dent Mater J 2007; 26: 613-22.
Bollen CM, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature. Dent Mater J 1997; 13: 258-69.
Draughn RA, Harrison A. Relationship between abrasive wear and microstructure of composite resins. J Prosthet Dent 1978; 40: 220-24.
Martinelli J, Pires-de-Souza F, Casemiro L, Tirapelli C, Panzer H. Abrasion resistence of composites polymerized by light-emitting diodes (LED) and halogen light-curing units. Braz Dent J 2006; 17: 29-33.
Van Dijken JW, Ruyter IE. Surface characteristics of posterior composites after polishing and toothbrushing. Acta Odontol Scand 1987; 45: 337-46.
Briso AL, Caruzo LP, Guedes AP, Catelan A, dos Santos PH. In vitro evaluation of surface roughness and microhardness of restorative materials submitted to erosive challenges. Oper Dent 2011; 36: 397-402.
Poggio C, Dagna A, Chiesa M, Colombo M, Scribante A. Surface roughness of flowable resin composites eroded by acidic and alcoholic drinks. J conserv Dent 2012; 15: 137-40.
Abu-bakr N, Han L, Okamoto A, Iwaku M. Changes in the mechanical properties and surface texture of compomer immersed in various media. J Prosthet Dent 2000; 84: 444-52.
Badra VV, Faraoni JJ, Ramos RP, Palma-Dibb RG. Influence of different beverages on the microhardness and surface roughness of resin composites. Oper Dent 2005; 30: 213-9.
Hamouda IM, Effects of various beverages on hardness, roughness, and solubility of esthetic restorative materials. J Esthet Restor Dent 2011; 23: 315-22.
Somayaji S, Amalan A, Ginjupalli K. Effect of different acidic beverages on microhardness of nanohybrid composite, giomer, and microhybrid composite. World J 2016; 7: 126-8.
Yu H, Wegehaupt FJ, Wiegand A, Roos M, Attin T, Buchalla W. Erosion and abrasion of tooth-colored restorative materials and human enamel. J Dent 2009; 37: 913-22.
Ionta FQ, Dos Santos NM, Mesquita IM, Dionísio EJ, Cruvinel T, Honório HM, et al. Is the dentifrice containing calcium silicate, sodium phosphate, and fluoride able to protect enamel against chemical mechanical wear? An in situ/ex vivo study. Clin Oral Invest 2019; 23: 3713-20.
Valinoti AC, Neves BG, Silva EM, Maia LC. Surface degradation of composite resins by acidic medicines and pH-cycling. J Appl Oral Sci 2008; 16: 257-65.
Hengtrakool C, Kukiattrakoon B, Kedjarune-Leggat U. Effect of naturally acidic agents on microhardness and surface micromorphology of restorative materials. Eur J Dent 2011; 5: 89.
Reddy DS, Kumar RA, Venkatesan SM, Narayan GS, Duraivel D, Indra R. Influence of citric acid on the surface texture of glass ionomer restorative materials. J Conserv Dent 2014; 17: 436-9.
Wiegand A, Attin T. Influence of fluoride on the prevention of erosive lesions-a review. Oral Health Prev Dent 2003; 1: 245-54.
Barac R, Gasic J, Trutic N, Sunaric S, Popovic J, Djekic P, et al. Erosive effect of different soft drinks on enamel surface in vitro: application of stylus profilometry. Med Princ Pract 2015; 24: 451-57.
Kooi TJM, Tan QZ, Yap AUJ, Guo W, Tay KJ, Soh MS. Effects of food-simulating liquids on surface properties of giomer restoratives. Oper Dent 2012; 37: 665-71.
Attin T, Meyer K, Hellwig E, Buchalla W, Lennon A. Effect of mineral supplements to citric acid on enamel erosion. Arch Oral Biol 2003; 48: 753-59.
Marghalani H. Effect of filler particles on surface roughness of experimental composite series. J Appl oral sci 2010; 18: 59-67.
Erdemir U, Yildiz E, Eren MM, Ozel S. Surface hardness of different restorative materials after long-term immersion in sports and energy drinks. Dent Mater J 2012; 31: 729-36.
Bollenl CM, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature. Dent Mater J 1997; 13: 258-69.
Ikemura K, Tay FR, Endo T, Pashley DH. A review of chemical-approach and ultramorphological studies on the development of fluoride-releasing dental adhesives comprising new pre-reacted glass ionomer (PRG) fillers. Dent Mater J 2008; 27: 315-39.
Tanthanuch S, Kukiattrakoon B, Eiam OPK, Pokawattana K, Pamanee N, Thongkamkaew W, et al. Surface changes of various bulk-fill resin-based composites after exposure to different food-simulating liquid and beverages. J Esthet Restor Dent 2018; 30: 126-35.
Ypei Gia NR, Sampaio CS, Higashi C, Sakamoto A Jr, Hirata R. The injectable resin composite restorative technique: A case report. J Esthet Restor Dent 2021; 33: 404-414.
Mafla AC, Cerón-Bastidas XA, Munoz-Ceballos ME, Vallejo-Bravo DC, Fajardo-Santacruz MC. Prevalence and Extrinsic Risk Factors for Dental Erosion in Adolescents. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2017; 41: 102-11.