Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T11:52:14.069Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Roughness and Morphology of Composites: Influence of Type of Material, Fluoride Solution, and Time

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 August 2014

Ana Luísa Botta Martins de Oliveira ,
Elisa Maria Aparecida Giro ,
Patrícia Petromilli Nordi Sasso Garcia ,
Juliana Álvares Duarte Bonini Campos ,
Jin-Ho Phark  and
Sillas Duarte Jr.
Ana Luísa Botta Martins de Oliveira*
Affiliation:
Department of Social Dentistry, Araraquara School of Dentistry, University of Sao Paulo State, SP 14801-903, Brazil
Elisa Maria Aparecida Giro
Affiliation:
Department of Social Dentistry, Araraquara School of Dentistry, University of Sao Paulo State, SP 14801-903, Brazil
Patrícia Petromilli Nordi Sasso Garcia
Affiliation:
Department of Child Clinic, Araraquara School of Dentistry, University of Sao Paulo State, SP 14801-903, Brazil
Juliana Álvares Duarte Bonini Campos
Affiliation:
Department of Child Clinic, Araraquara School of Dentistry, University of Sao Paulo State, SP 14801-903, Brazil
Jin-Ho Phark
Affiliation:
Ostrow School of Dentistry, Division of Restorative Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0641, USA
Sillas Duarte Jr.
Affiliation:
Ostrow School of Dentistry, Division of Restorative Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0641, USA
*
*Corresponding author. analuisabotta@hotmail.com
Get access

Abstract

This study evaluated the effect of fluoride solutions on surface roughness and morphology of composites in the short and long term. Specimens were randomly assigned to experimental groups (n=5) according to type of composite (nanofilled, microhybrid, microfilled) and immersion media (artificial saliva, 0.05% sodium fluoride solution, Fluordent Reach, Oral-B, and Fluorgard). Roughness was evaluated at time intervals: T0 after 24 h in artificial saliva (baseline); T60 after being in assigned immersion media for 1 min daily over 60 days; and Tfinal after artificial aging (20,000 thermal cycles, 1,200,000 mechanical loading cycles, and continuous immersion for 1,825 min). Surface morphology was qualitatively analyzed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) at T60 and Tfinal. Roughness data were submitted to analysis of variance for mixed repeated measures, Sidak, and Tukey tests at α=0.05. Micro-filled resin showed the highest roughness values. Fluoride solutions had no influence on roughness. Higher roughness values were observed after artificial aging. In SEM observations after the artificial aging, the specimens showed surface degradation, irrespective of immersion medium or type of composite. Nano-filled resin showed higher loss of resin matrix and protrusion of filler particles. Roughness was not influenced by fluoride solutions; however, it is material dependent and increases over time.

Keywords

fluorinecomposite resinsagingdental polishingSEM
Type
Biological Applications
Information
Microscopy and Microanalysis , Volume 20 , Issue 5 , October 2014 , pp. 1365 - 1372
Copyright
© Microscopy Society of America 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Almeida, G.S., Poskus, L.T., Guimarães, J.G. & Silva, E.M. (2010). The effect of mouth rinses on salivary sorption, solubility and surface degradation of a nanofilled and a hybrid resin composite. Oper Dent 35, 105–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Badra, V.V., Faraoni, J.J., Ramos, R.P. & Palma-Dibb, R.G. (2005). Influence of different beverages on the microhardness and surface roughness of resin composites. Oper Dent 30, 213–219.Google ScholarPubMed
Beun, S., Glorieux, T., Devaux, J., Vreven, J. & Leloup, G. (2007). Characterization of nanofilled compared to universal and microfilled composites. Dent Mater 23, 51–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blatz, M.B., Oppes, S., Chiche, G., Holst, S. & Sadan, A. (2008). Influence of cementation technique on fracture strength and leakage of alumina all-ceramic crowns after cyclic loading. Quintessence Int 39, 23–32.Google ScholarPubMed
Botta, A.C., Duarte, S. Jr., Paulin Filho, P.I. & Gheno, S.M. (2008). Effect of dental finishing instruments on the surface roughness of composite resins as elucidated by atomic force microscopy. Microsc Microanal 14, 380–386.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carvalho, F., Sampaio, C., Fucio, S., Carlo, H., Correr-Sobrinho, L. & Puppin-Rontani, R. (2012). Effect of chemical and mechanical degradation on surface roughness of three glass ionomers and a nanofilled resin composite. Oper Dent 37, 509–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Catelan, A., Briso, A.L., Sundfeld, R.H. & Dos Santos, P.H. (2010). Effect of artificial aging on the roughness and microhardness of sealed composites. J Esthet Restor Dent 22, 324–330.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Condon, J.R. & Ferracance, J.L. (1996). Evaluation of composite wear with a new multi-mode oral wear simulator. Dent Mater 12, 218–226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Moraes, R.R., Gonçalves, L.D.S., Lancellotti, A.C., Consani, S., Correr-Sobrinho, L. & Sinhoreti, M.A. (2009). Nanohybrid resin composites: Nanofiller loaded materials or traditional microhybrid resins? Oper Dent 34, 551–557.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Moraes, R.R., Marimon, J.L., SCHENEIDER, L.F., Sinhoreti, M.A., Correr-Sobrinho, L. & Bueno, M. (2008). Effect of 6 months of aging in water on hardness and surface roughness of two microhybrid dental composites. J Prosthodont 17, 323–326.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferracane, J.L. (2006). Hygroscopic and hydrolytic effects in dental polymer networks. Dent Mater 22, 211–222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Floyd, C.J. & Dickens, S.H. (2006). Network structure of Bis-GMA and UDMA-based resin systems. Dent Mater 12, 1143–1149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia, P.P.N.S., Corona, S.A.M., PALMA DIBB, R.G., Chimello, D.T., Catirse, A.B.E. & Freitas, E.M. (2002). Effect of fluoride-containing mouthrinses on the translucence of resin modified glass-ionomer cements. Mater Res 5, 485–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guler, A.U., Kurt, S. & Kulunk, T. (2005). Effects of various finishing procedures on the staining of provisional restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent 93, 453–458.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hahnel, S., Henrich, A., Bürgers, R., Handel, G. & Rosentritt, M. (2010). Investigation of mechanical properties of modern dental composites after artificial aging for one year. Oper Dent 35, 412–419.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marghalani, H.Y. (2010). Effect of filler particles on surface roughness of experimental composite series. J Appl Oral Sci 18, 59–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miranda, D.A., Bertoldo, C.E., Aguiar, F.H., Lima, D.A. & Lovadino, J.R. (2011). Effects of mouthwashes on Knoop hardness and surface roughness of dental composites after different immersion times. Braz Oral Res 25, 168–173.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mitra, S.B., Wu, D. & Holmes, B.N. (2003). An application of nanotechnology in advanced dental material. J Am Dent Assoc 134, 1382–1390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagem Filho, H., D’azevedo, M.T.F.S., Nagem, H.D. & Marsola, F.P. (2003). Surface roughness of composite resins after finishing and polishing. Braz Dent J 14, 37–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oliveira, A.L., Domingos, P.A., Palma-Dibb, R.G. & Garcia, P.P. (2012). Chemical and morphological features of nanofilled composite resin: Influence of finishing and polishing procedures and fluoride solutions. Microsc Res Tech 75, 212–219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oliveira, A.L.B.M., Garcia, P.P.N.S., Santos, P.A. & Campos, J.S.D.B. (2010). Surface roughness and hardness of a composite resin: Influence of finishing and polishing and immersion methods. Mater Res 13, 409–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paravina, R.D., Roeder, L., Lu, H., Vogel, K. & Powers, J.M. (2004). Effect of finishing and polishing procedures on surface roughness, gloss and color of resin composites. Am J Dent 17, 262–266.Google Scholar
Reis, A.F., Giannini, M., Lovadino, J.R. & Dias, C.T.S. (2002). The effect of six polishing systems on the surface roughness of two packable resin-based composites. Am J Dent 15, 193–197.Google ScholarPubMed
Rocha, A.C.C., Lima, C.S.A., Santos, M.C.M.S. & Montes, M.A.J.R. (2010). Evaluation of surface roughness of a nanofill resin composite after simulated brushing and immersion in mouthrinses, alcohol and water. Mat Res 13, 77–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarret, D.C., Söderholm, J.M. & Batich, C.D. (1991). Water and abrasion effects on three-body wear of composites. J Dent Res 70, 1074–1081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilder, A.D. Jr., Swift, J.R.E.J., May, J.R.K.N., Thompson, J.Y. & Mcdougal, R.A. (2000). Effect of finishing technique on the microleakage and surface texture of resin-modified glass ionomer restorative materials. J Dent 28, 367–373.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yap, A.U.J., Low, J.S. & Ong, L.F.K.L (2000). Effect of food-simulating liquids on surface characteristics of composite and polyacid-modified composite restoratives. Oper Dent 25, 170–176.Google ScholarPubMed
Yap, A.U.J., Lye, K.W. & Sal, C.W. (1997). Surface characteristics of tooth – collored restoratives polished utilizing different polishing systems. Oper Dent 22, 260–265.Google Scholar
Yap, A.U.J., Yap, S.H., Teo, C.K. & Ng, J.J. (2004). Comparison of surface finish of new aesthetic restorative materials. Oper Dent 29, 100–104.Google ScholarPubMed