Effect of different surface penetrating sealants on the roughness of a nanofiller composite resin

Abstract

This study evaluated the effectiveness of different sealants applied to a nanofiller composite resin. Forty specimens of Filtek Z-350 were obtained after inserting the material in a 6x3 mm stainless steel mold followed by light activation for 20 s. The groups were divided (n=10) according to the surface treatment applied: Control group (no surface treatment), Fortify, Fortify Plus and Biscover LV. The specimens were subjected to simulated toothbrushing using a 200 g load and 250 strokes/min to simulate 1 week, 1, 3 and 6 months and 1 and 3 years in the mouth, considering 10,000 cycles equivalent to 1 year of toothbrushing. Oral-B soft-bristle-tip toothbrush heads and Colgate Total dentifrice at a 1:2 water-dilution were used. After each simulated time, surface roughness was assessed in random triplicate readings. The data were submitted to two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test at a 95% confidence level. The specimens were observed under scanning electron microscopy (SEM) after each toothbrushing cycle. The control group was not significantly different (p>0.05) from the other groups, except for Fortify Plus (p<0.05), which was rougher. No significant differences (p>0.05) were observed at the 1-month assessment between the experimental and control groups. Fortify and Fortify Plus presented a rougher surface over time, differing from the baseline (p<0.05). Biscover LV did not differ (p>0.05) from the baseline at any time. None of the experimental groups showed a significantly better performance (p>0.05) than the control group at any time. SEM confirmed the differences found during the roughness testing. Surface penetrating sealants did not improve the roughness of nanofiller composite resin.

The effect of surface sealant application and accelerated aging on posterior restorative surfaces: An SEM and AFM study

“…Our study finding that surface roughness values increased following the application of surface sealant may be explained by the relatively high filler content and particle size of Fortify Plus, a resin containing 17.3% (vol) micro-fillers. A study by Lopes et al 32) reported that application of surface sealants (Fortify, Fortify Plus, and Biscover LV) did not diminish the roughness of a nano-filler composite resin (Filtek Z-350), whereas dos Santos et al 33) reported that the surface sealant Protect-It resulted in smoother surfaces when applied to the composites Alert and Definite, but had no effect on the surface roughness of the composites Z100 and Prodigy; the authors attributed the difference in sealant performance to differences in the size of the filler particles used in the different composites.…”

Microleakage and penetration depth of different fissure sealant materials after cyclic thermo-mechanic and brushing simulation

“…By mixing a 2:1 ratio by volume of deionized water and a daily used dentifrice (Colgate Total, Colgate-Palmolive, England), the slurry, which was used as a third medium in the brushing simulation, was prepared. For one year, 10,000 strokes were performed at a frequency of 1 Hz; a double pass of the toothbrush head on the specimen was considered a stroke 14,15) . The toothbrushes were changed after every 10,000 strokes.…”

Effect of erosion and methods for its control on the surface roughness of composite resin

“…Lopes et al [27] investigated the effect of various sealants (Fortify, Fortify Plus and BisCover) in a nanoparticle composite similar to the one investigated in this study. The authors noticed that the sealant Fortify behaved in a similar way to the control group, concluding that it is not capable of promoting better protection for the organic matrix of nanofilled composite.…”