| Literature DB >> 35631949 |
Nikolina Nika Veček1, Matej Par2, Eva Klarić Sever2, Ivana Miletić2, Silvana Jukić Krmek2.
Abstract
Acidic drinks are known to exert negative effects on the surface properties of dental restorative materials. However, the effect of increasingly popular green smoothie drinks has not been addressed so far. The present study investigated the effect of cyclic immersions (5 min daily over 30 days) in a green smoothie drink on the surface properties of contemporary dental restorative materials, including resin composites, an alkasite, and a glass hybrid. Vickers microhardness, profile roughness, and perceptible color change in the CIE L* a* b* color space were evaluated as clinically relevant properties of the material surface. After 30-day green smoothie immersion, microhardness values either decreased by 8-28% (for resin composites) or increased by up to 91% (for glass hybrid). The increase in profile roughness (Ra parameter) of smoothie-immersed specimens was 7-26 times higher compared to the control group. The perceptible color change (ΔE*) in the smoothie group was 3-8 times higher compared to the control group. Overall, this study demonstrated that daily exposure of dental restorations made from resin composites, alkasites, and glass hybrid materials to a green smoothie drink can significantly accelerate material degradation, which is reflected as surface softening, as well as higher roughness and higher perceptible color change.Entities:
Keywords: alkasite; color; glass hybrid; green smoothie; microhardness; resin composites; roughness
Year: 2022 PMID: 35631949 PMCID: PMC9145769 DOI: 10.3390/polym14102067
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.967
Composition of tested materials provided by respective manufacturers.
| Material | Type | Composition |
|---|---|---|
| Tetric EvoCeram (TEC)/ | Conventional resin composite | Urethanedimethacrylate, Bis-GMA, ytterbium trifluoride, ethoxylated bisphenol A dimethacrylate, barium glass filler, ytterbium trifluoride, mixed oxide |
| Cention N (CEN)/ | “Alkasite”(Resin composite with reactive glass fillers) | Powder: barium aluminum silicate glass, ytterbium trifluoride, isofiller, calcium barium aluminum fluorosilicate glass, calcium fluoro silicate glass; |
| Charisma Classic (CHA)/Kulzer, Hanau, Germany/KA10758 | Conventional resin composite | Bis-GMA, TEGDMA; Filler load: 61% by volume (60% inorganic filler by volume and pre-polymerized filler), particle size of 0.005–10 µm, barium aluminum fluoride glass. |
| Equia Forte HT Fil (EQ/EQC)/ | Glass hybrid | Powder: fluoroaluminosilicate glass, polyacrylic acid, iron oxide |
| Filtek One Bulk Fill Restorative (FBF)/ | Bulk-fill resin composite | Nonagglomerated/nonaggregated 20 nm silica filler, nonagglomerated/nonaggregated 4 to 11 nm zirconia filler, aggregated zirconia/silica cluster filler, ytterbium trifluoride filler consisting of agglomerate 100 nm particles, ERGP-DMA, diurethane- DMA, 1,12-dodecane-DMA |
Note: Bis-GMA: bisphenol A-glycidyl methacrylate; PMMA: poly (methyl methacrylate); TEGDMA: triethylene glycol di methacrylate; DMA: dimethacrylate; UDMA: urethane dimethacrylate.
Figure 1Flowchart of the experimental protocol.
Figure 2Microhardness (mean values ± 1 standard deviation, n = 10) measured 24 h after specimen preparation and after 1 month of immersion (a), and delta microhardness (mean values ± s.d.) representing microhardness change between these two time points (b). Square brackets indicate statistically similar values. Same uppercase letters indicate statistically similar values within the smoothie group. Same lowercase letters indicate statistically similar values within the control group. TEC: Tetric EvoCeram, CEN: Cention, CHA: Charisma Classic, EQ: Equia Forte HT Fil Uncoated, EQC: Equia Forte HT Fil Coated FBF: Filtek Bulk Fill.
Figure 3Profile roughness represented as Ra (mean values ± 1 standard deviation, n = 10) measured 24 h after specimen preparation and after 1 month of immersion (a), and delta Ra (mean values ± s.d.) representing profile roughness change between these two time points (b). Square brackets indicate statistically similar values. All pairwise comparisons (smoothie vs. control) of delta Ra values showed statistically significant differences. Same uppercase letters indicate statistically similar values within the smoothie group. Same lowercase letters indicate statistically similar values within the control group. TEC: Tetric EvoCeram, CEN: Cention, CHA: Charisma Classic, EQ: Equia Forte HT Fil Uncoated, EQC: Equia Forte HT Fil Coated FBF: Filtek Bulk Fill.
Figure 4Delta E (mean values ± 1 standard deviation, n = 10) representing perceptible color change between 24 h and 1 month. All pairwise comparisons (smoothie vs. control) showed statistically significant differences. Same uppercase letters indicate statistically similar values within the smoothie group. Same lowercase letters indicate statistically similar values within the control group. TEC: Tetric EvoCeram, CEN: Cention, CHA: Charisma Classic, EQ: Equia Forte HT Fil Uncoated, EQC: Equia Forte HT Fil Coated FBF: Filtek Bulk Fill.
Figure 5ΔL*, Δa*, and Δb* (mean values ± 1 standard deviation, n = 10) representing shifts along individual color axes between 24 h and 1 month. Square brackets indicate statistically similar values. Same uppercase letters indicate statistically similar values within the smoothie group. Same lowercase letters indicate statistically similar values within the control group. TEC: Tetric EvoCeram, CEN: Cention, CHA: Charisma Classic, EQ: Equia Forte HT Fil Uncoated, EQC: Equia Forte HT Fil Coated FBF: Filtek Bulk Fill.
Figure 6The component loading plot in rotated space for the variables representing the change of microhardness (ΔMH), profile roughness (ΔRa), and perceptible color (ΔE*) within the smoothie and the control group.