Home Current issue Instructions
About us Archives Login 
Editorial board Search articles Contact us
Home Print this page Email this page Users Online: 48

 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 5  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 111-114

Surface roughness of restorative materials after immersion in mouthwashes


1 Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry; Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Ribeirão Preto School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, São Paulo Brazil
2 Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Ribeirão Preto School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo; Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University Center Hermínio Ometto, São Paulo, Brazil
3 Department of Dentistry, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
4 Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, São Paulo Brazil
5 Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Ribeirão Preto School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, São Paulo Brazil

Date of Web Publication26-Aug-2016

Correspondence Address:
Alma Blasida Concepcion Elizaur Benitez Catirse
Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Ribeirão Preto School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo Avenida do Café, s/n 14040-904 Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brasil

Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/2278-9626.189255

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 

Objective: To evaluate the surface roughness of resin composite and ceramic material after immersion in mouthwashes. Methodology: Thirty specimens of resin composite and ceramic material were prepared with a stainless steel matrix (6 mm × 2 mm). The samples of each material were divided into three groups (n = 10), according to the mouthwashes: Distilled water (DW), chlorhexidine (CL) 0.12%, and cetylpyridinium chloride (CC). Specimens were individually submitted to the immersion cycle in 15 mL of mouthwash for 30 days, three times per day, for 1 min/cycle. Surface roughness measurements were performed at three different time intervals: Before the first cycle (T0), after 7 (T1), and 30 days (T2) of immersion. Data were analyzed by the two-way ANOVA and Tukey tests (P ≤ 0.05). Results: There was no statistically significant difference in surface roughness of resin composite among mouthwashes (DW - 1.4 ± 0.13 μm; CL - 1.16 ± 0.13 μm; CC - 1.18 ± 0.13 μm). Surface roughness was statistically significantly lower after 30 days (T2-0.56 ± 0.60 μm) compared with the initial period (T0-1.63 ± 0.60 μm) and after 7 days (T1-1.57 ± 0.60 μm). For ceramic material, CC (3.75 ± 0.60 μm) caused a higher level of surface roughness compared with DW (2.57 ± 0.60 μm) and CL (3.39 ± 0.60 μm). There was no statistically significant difference among the different time intervals (T0-3.05 ± 0.18 μm; T1-3.41 ± 0.18 μm; T2-3.26 ± 0.18 μm). Conclusion: Mouthwashes did not promote a significant change in surface roughness of composite resin. Cetylpyridinium chloride promoted an increase in surface roughness of dental ceramic.

Keywords: Dental materials, mouthwashes, surface properties


How to cite this article:
Bohner LO, de Godoi AP, Ahmed AS, Neto PT, Concepcion Elizaur Benitez Catirse AB. Surface roughness of restorative materials after immersion in mouthwashes. Eur J Gen Dent 2016;5:111-4

How to cite this URL:
Bohner LO, de Godoi AP, Ahmed AS, Neto PT, Concepcion Elizaur Benitez Catirse AB. Surface roughness of restorative materials after immersion in mouthwashes. Eur J Gen Dent [serial online] 2016 [cited 2017 Feb 23];5:111-4. Available from: http://www.ejgd.org/text.asp?2016/5/3/111/189255


  Introduction Top


Restorative dental materials are widely used in clinical practice due to their excellent esthetics and biocompatibility. [1],[2],[3],[4] Contemporary composite resins have shown better physical properties due to improvement in resin monomers, fillers, and coupling agents, leading to high mechanical properties and superior esthetics. [1] Hence, composites may be recommended for both anterior and posterior restorations. However, these properties will be affected by adverse environmental conditions [2],[5] considering that exposure to acidic solutions present in oral cavity may affect the surface gloss and microhardness, [1] leading to the degradation of the materials [2],[6],[7] and decreasing their longevity. [6]

Likewise, dental ceramic presents excellent physical and mechanical properties, such as biocompatibility with oral tissues, provided that the material is placed in an optimal environment. Thus, it has become the material of choice for replacing dental structures. Nevertheless, an aqueous environment and exposure to chemical solutions may create micro cracks, resulting in increasing surface roughness. [8]

Surface features play a key role in the clinical longevity of restorative materials, [9] since superficial biodegradation resulting from chemical solutions will affect the material properties. [5],[6],[10],[11],[12] This process will allow plaque accumulation, [10] wear and discoloration of restorations. [5],[13]

Even preventive media, such as oral hygiene products, are capable of damaging the surface of restorative materials. Although mouthwashes are widely recommended for chemical plaque control, their overuse may lead to damage of restorative composites [14] because of the low pH and alcohol present in the solutions. [15] Despite the different manufacturers' recommendations, mouthwashes have been widely used by patients for prolonged period of time. [12] However, their action on esthetic materials is still controversial. [12],[16] Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of mouthwashes on the surface roughness of composite resin and dental ceramic after 7 and 30 days of use.


  Methodology Top


Experimental design

Thirty specimens of both composite resin Filtek Z350 (3M ESPE, Sumaré, São Paulo, Brazil) and dental ceramic IPS e.max Ceram (Ivoclar, Barueri, São Paulo, Brazil) were prepared as described below. Each material was divided in three groups (n = 10), according to the following solutions: Distilled water (DW); chlorhexidine (CL) 0.12% (Periogard, São Paulo, Brazil), and cetylpyridinium chloride (CC) (Colgate Plax 2 in 1, São Paulo, Brazil). Product compositions are shown in [Table 1].
Table 1: Composition of products used in this study

Click here to view


Composite resin specimen preparation

Composite resin specimens were prepared according to the manufacturer's instructions. The material was incrementally inserted into a stainless steel matrix (6 mm × 2 mm). A polyester strip (KDent, St. Louis, USA) and glass slab placed on the material to protect its surface, and a static load of 500 g was on the top of the set to ensure homogeneous filling of the matrix. After removing the load, the specimens were light-polymerized (Ultralux, Dabi Atlante, Ribeirao Preto, São Paulo, Brazil) with light intensity of 750 mW/cm. The specimens were removed from the matrix and polished with Sof-Lex discs (3M ESPE, Sumaré, São Paulo, Brazil) according to the manufacturer's instructions. During the experimental phase, the specimens were kept in DW at 37 ± 1°C.

Dental ceramic specimen preparation

The ceramic specimens were prepared by mixing powder and liquid to obtain a mass that was inserted into a stainless steel matrix (6 mm × 2 mm). After this, each specimen was fired in a furnace for ceramic baking (Ceramco Phoenix Quick Cool; Dentsply Ceramco, Burlington, NJ, USA) at 403°C for 4 min, followed by a cycle of 1 h at 750°C, according to the manufacturer's instructions. The specimens were prepared and polished with abrasive sandpaper (Norton Abrasives, Saint-Gobain Abrasives, Guarulhos, São Paulo, Brazil) of decreasing abrasiveness (#100-, #320-, #600-, #800-, and #1000-, grit) under water irrigation. To standardize the polishing procedure, all steps were performed by the same operator.

Immersion in mouthwashes

Specimens were submitted to an immersion cycle in mouthwashes for 30 days. For each immersion, specimens were individually inserted in a bottle containing 15 mL of the respective mouthwash, for a cycle lasting 1 min, three times per day, and under constant agitation. The immersion cycles were carried out with an interval of 8 h, and solutions were replaced after each cycle. Between the cycles, the specimens were stored in DW at 37°C.

Surface roughness analysis

The surface roughness analysis was carried out in three time intervals: Before the first immersion cycle (T0), 7 (T1), and 30 days (T2) after the experimental procedures began. Three readouts were taken of each specimen with the aid of a Rugosimeter (SJ-201 P/M, Mitutoyo, Tokyo, Japan), and the mean value was used for statistical analysis.

Statistical analysis

Data were analyzed with the two-way ANOVA and Tukey tests (P ≤ 0.05), by using GMC Software (Software Geraldo Maia Campos, Ribeirγo Preto, São Paulo, Brazil).


  Results Top


0Composite resin specimens

There was no statistically significant difference among the solutions (DW - 1.4 ± 0.13 μm; CL - 1.16 ± 0.13 μm; CC - 1.18 ± 0.13 μm). Surface roughness was statistically significantly lower after 30 days (T2-0.56 ± 0.60 μm) compared with the initial period (T0-1.63 ± 0.60 μm) and after 7 days (T1-1.57 ± 0.60 μm). The interaction between solutions and time is shown in [Table 2].
Table 2: Mean values (standard deviation) of composite resin surface roughness (ìm) to the interaction Solutions × Time

Click here to view


Ceramic specimens

Immersion in CC resulted in a level of higher surface roughness (3.75 ± 0.60 μm) compared with DW (2.57 ± 0.60 μm) and CL (3.39 ± 0.60 μm). There was no statistically significant difference among the different periods (T0-3.05 ± 0.18 μm; T1-3.41 ± 0.18 μm; T2-3.26 ± 0.18 μm). The interaction between solutions and time is shown in [Table 3].
Table 3: Mean values (standard deviation) of dental ceramic surface roughness (ìm) to the interaction Solutions × Time

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


Under specific conditions of this study, mouthwashes did no promote significant changes in surface roughness of composite resin in comparison with the control group (DW). Although the association of a mouthwash and an acidic solution may cause chemical dissolution of dental material, [16] the mouthwash product is not harmful when used alone. Furthermore, previous studies are still controversial with regard to the influence of mouthwashes on restorative materials. Sadaghiani et al. showed an increase in surface roughness after the use of mouthwash followed by brushing. [13] Nevertheless, Rocha et al. found no significant differences promoted by the same association. [9]

It is presumed that the components of mouthwashes will determine the degradation of restorative materials. [14],[16] Studies have reported that mouthwashes with alcohol or low pH may cause a harmful effects on restorative materials, [15] due to the effect of polymeric matrix plasticization, which will result in a higher degree of ductility of the material. [17] Furthermore, Yeh et al. concluded that fluoride causes degradation of the composite resin matrix and fillers. [18] Nevertheless, in the present study, the mouthwashes containing fluoride did not promote any statistically significant change in the composite. Even if a depolymerization process had occurred, this was not able to promote a change in surface roughness of the composite resin. As the solutions did not contain alcohol, this may have contributed to the positive results.

The influence of restorative material composition on mechanical properties must be considered, since the chemical structure of polymers is essential to define whether the material will be harmed in an aqueous environment. [9] Although immersion media often affect material properties causing surface degradation, [19],[20] the composite evaluated in the present study showed resistance to mouthwashes and did not undergo chemical and physical processes such as softening and plasticization. [9]

After 30 days, there was a decrease in surface roughness of the composite resin specimens. The composite probably absorbed the solutions that were disseminated through the matrix, [6] which resulted in swelling and consequent change in the resin matrix properties. [1] The late response may be due to the high percentage of urethane dimethacrylate in the composite, a hydrophilic component that hampers sorption. [21]

Since dental ceramic is the most inert of restorative materials, [12] an excellent clinical performance is expected. [11] Although an increase in surface roughness occurred with submersion in CC, this may be related to biodegradation of the vitreous ceramic, damaging only the polishing phase. The presence of glassy matrix may lead to dissolution of the glass network, considering that alkaline metal ions are less stable when in a glassy matrix phase than in a crystalline phase. [2] Furthermore, as a cationic surfactant, CC is able to reduce the surface tension and promote an increase in wetting. [14]

Studies have reported dental ceramic may be harmed by solutions present in an oral environment. Ccahuana et al. showed that dental ceramic suffered surface changes after exposure to acidulated phosphate fluoride. [8] Kukiattrakoon et al. found a decrease in microhardness when the ceramic was immersed in low pH solutions. [2] Furthermore, Esquivel-Upshaw et al. stated that the ceramic veneers were susceptible to degradation when in contact with low and high pH solutions, due to an ionic exchange mechanism. [22] However, Esquivel-Upshaw et al. showed that the degradation would be clinically significant only after a long period of use. [22]

In summary, although mouthwashes may have an effect on the surface roughness of restorative material, this did not seem to be relevant in a short period of time. Future researches must be conducted concerning the clinical environment and a longer period of use.


  Conclusion Top


Within the limitations of this in-vitro study, it was concluded that mouthwashes did not promote a significant change in surface roughness of composite resin. Cetylpyridinium chloride promoted an increase in surface roughness of dental ceramic.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
  References Top

1.
Dos Santos PA, Garcia PP, De Oliveira AL, Chinelatti MA, Palma-Dibb RG. Chemical and morphological features of dental composite resin: Influence of light curing units and immersion media. Microsc Res Tech 2010;73:176-81.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Kukiattrakoon B, Hengtrakool C, Kedjarune-Leggat U. Chemical durability and microhardness of dental ceramics immersed in acidic agents. Acta Odontol Scand 2010;68:1-10.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Osorio E, Aguilera FS, Osorio R, García-Godoy F, Cabrerizo-Vilchez MA, Toledano M. Determining efficacy of monitoring devices on ceramic bond to resin composite. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2012;17:e833-40.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Sripetchdanond J, Leevailoj C. Wear of human enamel opposing monolithic zirconia, glass ceramic, and composite resin: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:1141-50.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Voltarelli FR, Santos-Daroz CB, Alves MC, Cavalcanti AN, Marchi GM. Effect of chemical degradation followed by toothbrushing on the surface roughness of restorative composites. J Appl Oral Sci 2010;18:585-90.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
de Paula AB, Fucio SB, Ambrosano GM, Alonso RC, Sardi JC, Puppin-Rontani RM. Biodegradation and abrasive wear of nano restorative materials. Oper Dent 2011;36:670-7.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Bajwa NK, Pathak A. Change in surface roughness of esthetic restorative materials after exposure to different immersion regimes in a cola drink. ISRN Dent 2014;2014:353926.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Ccahuana VZ, Ozcan M, Mesquita AM, Nishioka RS, Kimpara ET, Bottino MA. Surface degradation of glass ceramics after exposure to acidulated phosphate fluoride. J Appl Oral Sci 2010;18:155-65.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Rocha AC, Santiago DC, Lima CS, Santos MC, Montes MA. Evaluation of surface roughness of a nanofill resin composite after simulated brushing and immersion in mouthrinses, alcohol and water. Mat Res 2010;13:77-80.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Ferracane JL. Hygroscopic and hydrolytic effects in dental polymer networks. Dent Mater 2006;22:211-22.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Esquivel-Upshaw J, Rose W, Oliveira E, Yang M, Clark AE, Anusavice K. Randomized, controlled clinical trial of bilayer ceramic and metal-ceramic crown performance. J Prosthodont 2013;22:166-73.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Padovani G, Fúcio S, Ambrosano G, Sinhoreti M, Puppin-Rontani R. In situ surface biodegradation of restorative materials. Oper Dent 2014;39:349-60.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Sadaghiani L, Wilson MA, Wilson NH. Effect of selected mouthwashes on the surface roughness of resin modified glass-ionomer restorative materials. Dent Mater 2007;23:325-34.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Tabatabaei SH, Sabaghi A. The effect of three mouthwashes on micro leakage of a composite resin-an in vitro study. J Am Sci 2013;9:13-9.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Diab M, Zaazou MH, Mubarak EH, Fahmy OM. Effect of five commercial mouthrinses on the microhardness and color stability of two resin composite restorative materials. Aust J Basic Appl Sci 2007;1:667-74.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Soares LE, de Oliveira R, Nahórny S, Santo AM, Martin AA. Micro energy-dispersive X-ray fluoresence mapping of enamel and dental materials after chemical erosion. Microsc Microanal 2012;18:1112-7.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Cengiz S, Yüzbasioglu E, Cengiz MI, Velioglu N, Sevimli G. Color stability and surface roughness of a laboratory-processed composite resin as a function of mouthrinse. J Esthet Restor Dent 2015;27:314-21.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Yeh ST, Wang HT, Liao HY, Su SL, Chang CC, Kao HC, et al. The roughness, microhardness, and surface analysis of nanocomposites after application of topical fluoride gels. Dent Mater 2011;27:187-96.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
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.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Zhang Y, Xu J. Effect of immersion in various media on the sorption, solubility, elution of unreacted monomers, and flexural properties of two model dental composite compositions. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2008;19:2477-83.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Gajewski VE, Pfeifer CS, Fróes-Salgado NR, Boaro LC, Braga RR. Monomers used in resin composites: Degree of conversion, mechanical properties and water sorption/solubility. Braz Dent J 2012;23:508-14.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Esquivel-Upshaw JF, Dieng FY, Clark AE, Neal D, Anusavice KJ. Surface degradation of dental ceramics as a function of environmental pH. J Dent Res 2013;92:467-71.  Back to cited text no. 22
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Methodology
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
References
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1134    
    Printed11    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded179    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal