Effect of tooth brushing on gloss retention and surface roughness of five bulk‐fill resin composites

O’Neill, Catherine; Kreplak, Laurent; Rueggeberg, Frederick A.; Labrie, D.; Shimokawa, Carlos Alberto Kenji; Price, Richard

doi:10.1111/jerd.12350

Cited by 66 publications

(83 citation statements)

References 47 publications

(148 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The surface roughness of resin‐based composites can influence the esthetic and biological outcomes of a dental filling, leading to discoloration (Gonulol & Yilmaz, ), gloss reduction (O'Neill et al, ), increased wear (Kakuta et al, ), biofilm accumulation (Cazzaniga et al, ), gingival inflammation, and secondary caries (Marghalani, ). Surface roughness can be affected by several factors related to the composite itself, including type, shape, size, and distribution of filler particles, composition of resin matrix, degree of conversion, and quality of the silane bonds at the filler/matrix interface (Nasoohi, Hoorizad, & Tabatabaei, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Modifications have been made to the inorganic fillers of resin composites in order to achieve better wear resistance and finishing/polishing features (Lu, Lee, Oguri, & Powers, ). The maintenance of a low surface roughness is an important factor related to surface gloss retention when composites are submitted to toothbrushing (O'Neill et al, ; Shimokawa et al, ). Therefore, surface roughness can influence staining, discoloration, and overall esthetics (Furuse, Gordon, Rodrigues, Silikas, & Watts, ), as well as biofilm accumulation (Cazzaniga, Ottobelli, Ionescu, Garcia‐Godoy, & Brambilla, ; Sturz, Faber, Scheer, Rothamel, & Neugebauer, ), and surface wear (Kakuta, Wonglamsam, Goto, & Ogura, ) of composite fillings.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Surface roughness and filler particles characterization of resin‐based composites

Ruivo

Pacheco

Sebold

et al. 2019

Microscopy Res & Technique

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the surface roughness (Ra), and the morphology and composition of filler particles of different composites submitted to toothbrushing and water storage. Disc‐shaped specimens (15 mm × 2 mm) were made from five composites: two conventional (Z100™, and Filtek™ Supreme Ultra Universal, 3M), one “quick‐cure” (Estelite ∑ Quick, Tokuyama), one fluoride‐releasing (Beautiful II, Shofu), and one self‐adhering (Vertise Flow, Kerr) composite. Samples were finished/polished using aluminum oxide discs (Sof‐Lex, 3M), and their surfaces were analyzed by profilometry (n = 5) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM; n = 3) at 1 week and after 30,000 toothbrushing cycles and 6‐month water storage. Ra data were analyzed by two‐way analysis of variance and Tukey's test (α = 0.05). Filler particles morphology and composition were analyzed by SEM and X‐ray dispersive energy spectroscopy, respectively. Finishing/polishing resulted in similar Ra for all the composites, while toothbrushing and water storage increased the Ra of all the tested materials, also changing their surface morphology. Beautifil II and Vertise Flow presented the highest Ra after toothbrushing and water storage. Filler particles were mainly composed of silicon, zirconium, aluminum, barium, and ytterbium. Size and morphology of fillers, and composition of the tested composites influenced their Ra when samples were submitted to toothbrushing and water storage.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surface roughness and filler particles characterization of resin‐based composites

Ruivo

Pacheco

Sebold

et al. 2019

Microscopy Res & Technique

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The surface roughness is an important property of restorations because it can be associated to biofilm adherence and gloss of restorations . Surfaces with roughness higher than 0.2 μm may present higher biofilm adhesion .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surface roughness and color stability of surface sealants and adhesive systems applied over a resin‐based composite

Cortopassi

Shimokawa

Willers

et al. 2019

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These mechanical factors also include oral hygiene procedures that may come into contact with the surface of the restorative materials such as a toothbrush and abrasive particles in toothpastes. Many previous studies have evaluated surface changes (color stability, gloss and surface roughness) of different restorative materials on the basis of brushing and abrasive dentifrices (6)(7)(8)(9)(10). Recently, water flossers (also known as oral irrigators) have become popular among patients and are being used more frequently as an adjunctive oral hygiene tool.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of water-jet flossing on surface roughness and color stability of dental resin-based composites

Alharbi¹,

Farah²

2020

J Clin Exp Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate the effects of water-jet flossing on the color stability and surface roughness of five resin-based composites. Material and Methods: Five commercially available composite resins were studied. Nine disc-shaped specimens (6x2mm) were fabricated from each composite. The specimens were randomly allocated into three groups and three different treatments were performed on each group: storage in water (control group), water-jet flossing using 50 Psi water pressure, and water-jet flossing using 100 Psi water pressure. The water-jet flossing was performed in a standardized manner using a Waterpik® Aquarius® water flosser. Color and roughness were measured at baseline and at the end of 30 minutes of treatment, which is approximately equivalent to 5 years of simulated water-jet flossing for 1 minute once a day. The data were statistically analyzed using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Bonferroni and Tukey's post-hoc tests. Results: No significant color change was found after 5 simulated years of water-jet flossing, irrespective of composite type and water-flossing pressure setting (p > 0.05). Furthermore, none of composite specimens showed any significant surface roughness changes except for the two composites with spherical filler specimens in the 100 Psi treatment group. These composites exhibited a significant increase in surface roughness compared with the nano-filled composite (p = 0.001 and p = 0.006). However, the differences were clinically acceptable (≈0.2 µm). Conclusions: In terms of surface roughness and color, water-jet flossing is safe to be used on composite restorations within the settings of this study.

show abstract

Effect of tooth brushing on gloss retention and surface roughness of five bulk‐fill resin composites

Abstract: Bulk-fill RBCs lose their gloss faster and become rougher than the nanofilled conventional RBC, Filtek Supreme Ultra. The nanofilled bulk-fill RBC was the least affected by tooth brushing.

Cited by 66 publications

References 47 publications

Surface roughness and filler particles characterization of resin‐based composites

Surface roughness and filler particles characterization of resin‐based composites

Surface roughness and color stability of surface sealants and adhesive systems applied over a resin‐based composite

Effect of water-jet flossing on surface roughness and color stability of dental resin-based composites

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About