Influence of Storage Regime Prior to Abrasion on Surface Topography of Restorative Materials

Federal University of Minas Gerais, Cidade de Minas, Minas Gerais, Brazil
Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B Applied Biomaterials (Impact Factor: 2.76). 05/2003; 65(2):227-32. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.10005
Source: PubMed


This investigation was carried out to evaluate the effect of storage conditions prior to brushing simulation on surface texture of restorative materials. One resin-modified glass ionomer (Fuji II LC Improved/GC Corp.), one polyacid-modified composite resin (Dyract AP/Denstply), one microfill composite (Durafill VS/Kulzer), and one hybrid (Filtek-Z250/3M) composite were tested. Forty-five standardized cylindrical specimens of each material were made and randomly divided into three groups according to their subsequent storage conditions: distilled deionized water, artificial saliva, or pH-cycling regime. After 24 h, the experimental units were finished and polished and the surface roughness was measured to obtain Ra baseline values (Bv). Samples were subjected to their assigned storage regime and brushed afterwards. By the end of 10 repetitions of this protocol, final surface roughness readings (Fv) were taken. The analysis of covariance (alpha = 0.05), considering the covariate Bv showed a significant interaction between restorative material and storage condition (p(value) = 0.0002). Tukey's test revealed that the pH-cycling model provided a significantly lower surface roughness for Fuji II LC and Dyract AP than did the other media. For both composites no significant difference among storage regimes was detected. Under a condition simulating dynamic variation in pH prior to abrasion, the resultant surface texture may be either smoothed down or unchanged, depending on the restorative material, when compared to the effect provided by artificial saliva and distilled deionized water.

5 Reads
    • "Sealants are affected by salivary flow and composition that vary throughout the day.[1819] Acidic pH affects the properties of restorative materials[20–22] and causes deterioration of the matrix-filler interface.[23] These factors would certainly contribute to the fracture resistance of sealants. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: THE AIM OF THIS STUDY IS TO COMPARE THE OCCURRENCE OF ENAMEL FRACTURES, SEALANT FRACTURES AND MARGINAL FISSURES AFTER PLACEMENT OF THREE SEALANTS: Helioseal F, Conseal F and Clinpro. Thirty individuals between 13 and 15 years of age, diagnosed with pit and fissure caries by visual and DIAGNOdent examination, were chosen for sealant placement on their mandibular molars. The sealants were placed at random, after which, impressions were made with polyvinyl siloxane and casts were fabricated. Dies were prepared, each of which were sputter coated with gold in order to be examined under a scanning electron microscope. The following morphologies were analyzed from dies from each of the sealant groups: Continuous margins, sealant fractures, marginal fissures and enamel fractures. After six months, they were recalled for impression making. Dies were prepared and microscopically analyzed as mentioned. Based on the time of evaluation, there were two groups: Initial group (soon after placement) and final group (after six months). Statistical analysis was done using the paired 't' test and One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Clinpro had the greatest fracture resistance, followed by Conseal F and Helioseal F. The occurrence of marginal fissure was found to be least with Clinpro.
    Journal of Conservative Dentistry 04/2012; 15(2):146-50. DOI:10.4103/0972-0707.94588
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The knowledge about the potential adverse effects of radiotherapy compared to dental composites is a useful information for the clinician's decision regarding adoption of repairs or replacement of dental restorations during oral cancer treatment. This study evaluated the effects of irradiation on microhardness and surface roughness of a microfilled and a packable composite resin. The microfilled composite resin demonstrated significantly lower microhardness and a smoother surface compared to the packable composite resin (p < 0.05). Although irradiation significantly reduced the microhardness for both composite resins (P < 0.05), increasing the x-ray doses did not cause an additional significant decrease in surface hardness (P > 0.05). Meanwhile, irradiation did not produce a significantly rougher surface (P > 0.05), but specimens submitted to abrasion exhibited a significant increase in surface roughness for both composite resins (P < 0.05). It was concluded that while irradiation can adversely affect the hardness of tested composite resins, it does not interfere with surface roughness.
    General dentistry 07/2011; 59(4):e168-72.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to evaluate the wear of resin-based materials caused by the association of abrasive and corrosive processes. Twenty specimens were prepared for each material, cast in epoxy in acrylic rings, polished, and profiled with an MTS 3D Profiler. Antagonists were made from deciduous molars. Specimens were distributed into eight groups (n = 10), according to the material (Filtek Supreme, Point 4, Dyract AP, and Fuji II LC) and the type of slurry (neutral and acidic), and then cycled 100,000 times in the OHSU oral wear simulator. The specimens were cleaned and reprofiled. Volume loss and maximum depth were determined. ANOVA and Tukey's test were used for data analysis (p < 0.05). The area of the wear facet on the antagonist was also measured. Composites displayed less wear than the compomer and the resin-modified glass ionomer. Significant differences also were found for cusp wear, with a significant positive correlation shown between cusp and material wear. The acidic slurry significantly increased the wear of the materials compared to the neutral slurry. Exposure to acidic slurry accelerated the wear of resin-based materials.
    Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B Applied Biomaterials 07/2006; 78(1):105-14. DOI:10.1002/jbm.b.30461 · 2.76 Impact Factor
Show more