Evaluation of weight loss and surface roughness of compomers after simulated toothbrushing abrasion test

Rafael Francisco Lia Mondelli,Anuradha Prakki,Eduardo Batista Franco,Fernanda Cristina Pimentel Garcia,Linda Wang,José Mondelli,Aquira Ishikiriama

doi:10.1590/s1678-77572005000200007

Rafael Francisco Lia Mondelli, Anuradha Prakki + Show 5 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1590/s1678-77572005000200007

Copy DOI

Abstract

This study aimed at analyzing the compomers wear by an "in vitro" toothbrushing abrasion test. The null hypotheses tested were that there would be no differences in weight loss and no significant changes in surface roughness of the compomers after this test. The utilized commercial brands were Dyract (Dentsply), Dyract AP (Dentsply), Compoglass F (Vivadent), Freedom (SDI), F2000 (3M ESPE), which were compared to the two resin composites Z100 (3M ESPE) and Silux Plus (3M ESPE). Ten cylindrical specimens for each commercial brand were prepared with 5mm diameter and 3mm thickness. An appropriate machine with soft bristle tips containing dentifrice solution and deionized water was used. A total of 100,000 brushing cycles were performed. The amount of weight loss was measured by the percentage alteration between the initial (before toothbrushing) and final weight (after toothbrushing), measured by a Sartorius analytical balance. The surface roughness change was determined by the percentage difference between initial and final means after 5 tracings by a T 1000 Hommel Tester roughness meter on the specimen's surfaces before and after toothbrushing abrasion test. The statistical analysis (Students paired t-test, ANOVA and Tukey, á=0.05) showed that all materials presented statistically significant weight loss and roughness increase after abrasion test. All compomers presented higher weight loss than resin composites. Freedom and Dyract AP presented the lowest weight loss among compomers. F2000 presented the worst abrasion resistance, without statistical differences with Dyract. For roughness changes, Dyract, Dyract AP, Z100, Compoglass F and Silux Plus showed the lowest surface roughness alteration, in increasing order, without statistical differences between them. Freedom was the statistically roughest material of the study.

Highlights

The association of composite resins and glass ionomer cement components determined a category of restorative materials called compomers[7,15]
Weight loss was higher than resin composites
Freedom and Dyract AP presented the lowest wear among compomers

Summary

Introduction

The association of composite resins and glass ionomer cement components determined a category of restorative materials called compomers[7,15]. Good biocompatibility, adhesion to enamel and dentin are some of their benefits. They are light cured, easy to handle and present superior strength when compared to conventional glass ionomer cements. Compomer is classified as a resin composite modified by polyacid, because it does not present acid-base reaction like the ionomer cements[20]. Wear is defined as progressive loss of substance from the surface of a material caused by a mechanical action[10]. Wear of restorative materials can result in loss of contour, increase in surface roughness, staining and plaque retention[27]. Some variables of compomers’ composition can create different wear rates, such as curing method, monomer system, particle size, filler treatment and the effect of aging[3]

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion