| Literature DB >> 36079211 |
Ayşegül Köroğlu1, Onur Şahin2, Ahmet Serkan Küçükekenci3, Doğu Ömür Dede3, Hüsniye Yıldırım4, Burak Yilmaz5,6,7.
Abstract
The surface properties and color stability of interim crown materials may vary depending on the toothbrushing procedure. This study aimed to investigate the effects of toothbrushing and different toothpastes on the surface roughness (Ra) and color stability of different interim crown materials. Disc-shaped specimens were prepared from four interim crown materials (Tab 2000 (ChPM), Imident (LaPM), Protemp 4 (ChDM), and Telio-CAD (CadPM)). Specimens were divided into four subgroups for the control group (Cnt) and for simulated toothbrushing with distilled water (Dw) or with two different toothpastes (whitening toothpaste (WTp), activated charcoal toothpaste (ACTp)). The specimens' Ra values were measured before and after 10,000 cycles of toothbrushing. The color parameters were measured and the color differences (ΔE00) were calculated. Data were statistically analyzed by two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's HSD tests. A significant increase in the Ra values was observed after toothbrushing, except for the LaPM_Dw, ChDM_Dw, and all the CadPM specimens (p < 0.05). Toothbrushing with toothpastes increased the ΔE00 values of all ChPM and ChDM interim materials (p < 0.05). Before and after all toothbrushing procedures, the CadPM specimens had smoother and ChPM specimens had rougher surfaces than the other interim materials. The two tested toothpastes had similar effects on the Ra of all interim materials. Non-perceivable color changes were seen only with the CadPM_Dw group.Entities:
Keywords: color stability; interim dental material; surface roughness; toothbrush abrasion; toothpaste
Year: 2022 PMID: 36079211 PMCID: PMC9457516 DOI: 10.3390/ma15175831
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.748
Materials used in the study.
| Code | Material | Type | Components | Manufacturer |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ChPM | Tab 2000 | Chairside direct polymethyl methacrylate resin | Methyl methacrylate, | Kerr Corp. (Scafati, Italy) |
| LaPM | Imident | Laboratory indirect polymethyl methacrylate resin | Polymethyl methacrylate powder (cadmium free), methyl methacrylate monomer | Imicryl (Konya, Turkey) |
| CadPM | Telio CAD | CAD CAM cross-linked polymethyl methacrylate | Polymethyl methacrylate | Ivoclar Vivadent AG (Schaan, Liechtenstein) |
| ChDM | Protemp 4 | Chairside direct bis-acryl composite resin | Ethanol,2,2′-[(1-methylethylidene)bis(4,1-phenyleneoxy)]bis-, diacetate, | 3M ESPE (Seefeld, Germany) |
| OgC | Optiglaze Color | Surface coating agent | Methyl methacrylate, polymethyl methacrylate, silica filler, photo inhibitor | GC Corp. (Tokyo, Japan) |
| WTp | Signal White Now | Whitening toothpaste | Hydrogenated starch hydrolysate, aqua, hydrated silica, sodium | Unilever (Rueil-Malmaison, France) |
| ACTp | Splat Blackwood | Activated charcoal toothpaste | Aqua, hydrated silica, hydrogenated starch hydrolysate, glycerin, maltooligosyl glucoside, sodium lauroyl sarcosinate, cellulose gum, aroma, charcoal powder, capryloyl/caproly methyl glucamide, lauroly/myristoyl methyl glucamide, sodium sorbate, menthol, o-cymen-5-ol, Juniperus communis sprout extract, limonene | Splat-Cosmetica (Moscow, Russia) |
Figure 1Stainless-steel mold used in the study and disc-shaped wax patterns for CadPM specimens.
Figure 2Toothbrushing simulation device used in the study.
Two-way ANOVA results for Ra and ΔE00 values.
| Source | SS | df | MS | F |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Interim material (A) | 2.582 | 3 | 0.861 | 564.716 | <0.001 * |
| Brushing procedure (B) | 0.611 | 3 | 0.204 | 133.686 | <0.001 * | |
| AxB | 0.203 | 9 | 0.023 | 14.761 | <0.001 * | |
| Error | 0.219 | 144 | 0.002 | |||
| Total | 20.575 | 160 | ||||
|
| A | 1.802 | 3 | 0.601 | 14.839 | <0.001 * |
| B | 2.162 | 3 | 0.721 | 17.803 | <0.001 * | |
| AxB | 1.627 | 9 | 0.181 | 4.467 | <0.001 * | |
| Error | 5.828 | 144 | 0.040 | |||
| Total | 195.760 | 160 | ||||
SS, sum of squares; df, degrees of freedom; MS, mean square; F, F value (variation between the sample means/variation within the samples). * p < 0.05 indicates statistical significance.
Mean Ra values (µm) and standard deviations (SD) of test groups with Tukey’s HSD multiple comparisons.
| Interim Material | ChPM | LaPM | CadPM | ChDM |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Mean ± SD * | Mean ± SD * | Mean ± SD * | Mean ± SD * |
| Cnt | 0.36 ± 0.05 Ca | 0.21 ± 0.03 Ba | 0.13± 0.04 Aa | 0.27 ± 0.03 Ba |
| Dw | 0.44 ± 0.05 Db | 0.26 ± 0.03 Bab | 0.15 ± 0.05 Aa | 0.32 ± 0.03 Ca |
| WTp | 0.61 ± 0.03 Dc | 0.31 ± 0.03 Bb | 0.17 ± 0.02 Aa | 0.42 ± 0.05 Cb |
| ACTp | 0.61 ± 0.03 Dc | 0.30 ± 0.04 Bb | 0.19 ± 0.01 Aa | 0.47 ± 0.05 Cb |
* Tukey’s HSD test results are shown as letters, and there is no statistically significant difference between values indicated by the same letter (p > 0.05). While lowercase letters show differences between toothbrushing groups for the same interim crown material, uppercase letters indicate differences when the same brushing procedure was applied to the interim crown materials.
Figure 3Mean Ra (±SD) values of the test groups. The plaque accumulation threshold (Ra = 0.2 mm) is indicated as line-x.
Mean ΔE00 values and standard deviations (SD) of test groups with Tukey’s HSD multiple comparisons.
| Interim Material | ChPM | LaPM | CadPM | ChDM |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Mean ± SD * | Mean ± SD * | Mean ± SD * | Mean ± SD * |
| Cnt | 0.88 ± 0.29 Aa | 0.92 ± 0.12 Aa | 1.00 ± 0.23 Aa | 0.88 ± 0.14 Aa |
| Dw | 0.98 ± 0.32 ABab | 1.03 ± 0.15 Aba | 0.79 ± 0.19 Aa | 1.22 ± 0.10 Bb |
| WTp | 1.36 ± 0.37 Bc | 1.12 ± 0.18 Aba | 0.93 ± 0.16 Aa | 1.31 ± 0.13 Bb |
| ACTp | 1.24 ± 0.17 Abbc | 1.13 ± 0.14 Aa | 0.96 ± 0.14 Aa | 1.44 ± 0.16 Bb |
* Tukey’s HSD test results are shown as letters, and there is no statistically significant difference between values indicated by the same letter (p > 0.05). Lowercase letters indicate differences between toothbrushing groups for same interim crown material, and uppercase letters indicate differences among interim crown material groups when the same brushing procedure was applied.
Figure 4Mean (±SD) ΔE00 values of the test groups. The perceptibility threshold of the color differences (ΔE00 = 0.8) is indicated as line-x, and the acceptability threshold (ΔE00 = 1.8) as line-y.