OBJECTIVES: The presence of cariogenic biofilm could result in surface degradation of composite and ionomeric restorative materials. Thus, this study evaluated in situ the alterations in the surface microhardness of these materials under biofilm accumulation and cariogenic challenge. METHODS: In a split-mouth, double-blind, cross-over study, 10 volunteers wore palatal intra-oral devices containing bovine enamel slabs restored with composite resin (CR - Z250) or resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI - Vitremer). Two phases of 14 days were carried out, one for each restorative material. In one side of the device, biofilm was allowed to accumulate under a plastic mesh, whereas in the opposing side, regular brushing was carried out 3 times/day with a dentifrice containing 1100 μg F/g as NaF. A 20% sucrose solution was applied extra-orally 10×/day on each restored dental slab. Knoop microhardness was used to calculate the percentage of surface hardness loss (%SHL). RESULTS: All materials showed a decrease in surface hardness after the in situ period. The restorative materials presented the following average for %SHL: RMGI without biofilm accumulation=8.9 and with biofilm accumulation=25.6, CR without biofilm accumulation=14.7 and with biofilm accumulation=17.0. CONCLUSION: Biofilm accumulation and the presence of cariogenic challenge promoted faster degradation of ionomeric materials, but this was not observed for composite resin. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The oral environment affects the surface hardness of aesthetic restorative materials. Biofilm accumulation and cariogenic challenge promote surface degradation for ionomeric materials, but not for composite resin.
OBJECTIVES: The presence of cariogenic biofilm could result in surface degradation of composite and ionomeric restorative materials. Thus, this study evaluated in situ the alterations in the surface microhardness of these materials under biofilm accumulation and cariogenic challenge. METHODS: In a split-mouth, double-blind, cross-over study, 10 volunteers wore palatal intra-oral devices containing bovine enamel slabs restored with composite resin (CR - Z250) or resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI - Vitremer). Two phases of 14 days were carried out, one for each restorative material. In one side of the device, biofilm was allowed to accumulate under a plastic mesh, whereas in the opposing side, regular brushing was carried out 3 times/day with a dentifrice containing 1100 μg F/g as NaF. A 20% sucrose solution was applied extra-orally 10×/day on each restored dental slab. Knoop microhardness was used to calculate the percentage of surface hardness loss (%SHL). RESULTS: All materials showed a decrease in surface hardness after the in situ period. The restorative materials presented the following average for %SHL: RMGI without biofilm accumulation=8.9 and with biofilm accumulation=25.6, CR without biofilm accumulation=14.7 and with biofilm accumulation=17.0. CONCLUSION: Biofilm accumulation and the presence of cariogenic challenge promoted faster degradation of ionomeric materials, but this was not observed for composite resin. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The oral environment affects the surface hardness of aesthetic restorative materials. Biofilm accumulation and cariogenic challenge promote surface degradation for ionomeric materials, but not for composite resin.
Authors: Françoise H van de Sande; Niek J M Opdam; Gert Jan Truin; Ewald M Bronkhorst; Johannes J de Soet; Maximiliano S Cenci; Marie-Charlotte Huysmans Journal: J Dent Date: 2014-07-08 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Ning Zhang; Mary A S Melo; Michael D Weir; Mark A Reynolds; Yuxing Bai; Hockin H K Xu Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2016-11-01 Impact factor: 3.623
Authors: Małgorzata Staszczyk; Anna Jurczak; Marcin Magacz; Dorota Kościelniak; Iwona Gregorczyk-Maga; Małgorzata Jamka-Kasprzyk; Magdalena Kępisty; Iwona Kołodziej; Magdalena Kukurba-Setkowicz; Wirginia Krzyściak Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-05-25 Impact factor: 3.390