Amanda Endres Willers1, Thaís Bulzoni Branco2, Beatriz Ometto Sahadi2, Juliana Jendiroba Faraoni3, Regina Guenka Palma Dibb3, Marcelo Giannini2. 1. Operative Dentistry Division, Department of Restorative Dentistry, State University of Campinas, Piracicaba Dental School, 901 Limeira Avenue, Piracicaba, São Paulo, 13414-903, Brazil. amanda.willers@gmail.com. 2. Operative Dentistry Division, Department of Restorative Dentistry, State University of Campinas, Piracicaba Dental School, 901 Limeira Avenue, Piracicaba, São Paulo, 13414-903, Brazil. 3. Department of Restorative Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Investigate the effect of erosive challenge with hydrochloric acid (HCl) on the surface of five different restorative materials. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ten plates of five restorative materials (Admira Fusion, Activa BioActive-Restorative, Charisma, Equia Forte HT Fil/EF, Filtek Universal Restorative/FU) were obtained. Half of the plate surfaces was covered with an adhesive tape, creating a control area, and the other side was submitted to the HCl (0.06 M HCl; pH 1.2; at 37 °C; for 30 h). Plates with control and HCl-treated areas were analyzed regarding the surface roughness (Sa), roughness profile (Rv), surface loss (SL), microhardness (MI), and gloss (GL) (n = 10). Surface morphology was analyzed by SEM and chemical elements were identified by EDX (n = 5). Data were evaluated by ANOVA and Tukey's test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Most materials were not affected by HCl. FU showed the lowest Sa and Rv, and the highest GL after HCl. On the other hand, EF presented the highest Sa, Rv, and SL, and the lowest GL. The MI of materials was not changed after HCl. Topographical and chemical alterations were observed after HCl only for EF. CONCLUSIONS: The composites showed minor surface changes after HCl, which was not observed for the glass ionomer cement (EF). FU presented the best performance regarding the parameters evaluated. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The effects of erosive challenge with HCl on composites were minimal, while the glass ionomer cements might not be indicated as restorative material for patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease.
OBJECTIVE: Investigate the effect of erosive challenge with hydrochloric acid (HCl) on the surface of five different restorative materials. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ten plates of five restorative materials (Admira Fusion, Activa BioActive-Restorative, Charisma, Equia Forte HT Fil/EF, Filtek Universal Restorative/FU) were obtained. Half of the plate surfaces was covered with an adhesive tape, creating a control area, and the other side was submitted to the HCl (0.06 M HCl; pH 1.2; at 37 °C; for 30 h). Plates with control and HCl-treated areas were analyzed regarding the surface roughness (Sa), roughness profile (Rv), surface loss (SL), microhardness (MI), and gloss (GL) (n = 10). Surface morphology was analyzed by SEM and chemical elements were identified by EDX (n = 5). Data were evaluated by ANOVA and Tukey's test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Most materials were not affected by HCl. FU showed the lowest Sa and Rv, and the highest GL after HCl. On the other hand, EF presented the highest Sa, Rv, and SL, and the lowest GL. The MI of materials was not changed after HCl. Topographical and chemical alterations were observed after HCl only for EF. CONCLUSIONS: The composites showed minor surface changes after HCl, which was not observed for the glass ionomer cement (EF). FU presented the best performance regarding the parameters evaluated. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The effects of erosive challenge with HCl on composites were minimal, while the glass ionomer cements might not be indicated as restorative material for patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease.
Authors: Luís Eduardo Silva Soares; Luciana Reinaldo Lima; Laís De Souza Vieira; Ana Maria Do Espírito Santo; Airton Abrahão Martin Journal: Microsc Res Tech Date: 2011-12-01 Impact factor: 2.769