Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of four different mouthrinses on the surface roughness of two nanohybrid resin composites. Material and Methods: Fifty samples were prepared for each of the resin composites (2x8 mm) and a profilometer was used to determine the initial surface roughness (Ra) of each sample. Then, they were divided into 5 subgroups (n= 10), and exposed to the following mouthrinses (12h, 37 ºC): containing alcohol and essential oils; alcohol and chlorhexidine; alcohol-free and essential oils; alcohol free and cetil prydinium chlorite; or distilled water (control). The surface roughness of each sample was measured again. Statistical analyses of the data were performed via two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni tests. Results: Overall, statistically significant differences were not found between the resin composites (p> 0.05), but significant differences were found among the mouthrinses (p< 0.05). Interactions between the mouthrinses and the resin composites was statistically significant (p< 0.05). Both of the resin composites had the highest surface roughness after exposure to mouthrinse with alcohol and essential oils (p< 0.05), followed by mouthrinse with alcohol and chlorhexidine. Both alcohol-free mouthrinses caused surface roughness either similar to distilled water (p> 0.05) or lower than distilled water (p< 0.05) on the nanohybrid resin composites used. Conclusion: The mouthrinses affected the surface roughness of the resin composites in different ways. This was dependent on mouthrinse contents and the chemical structure of the resin composites. Alcohol-containing mouthrinses caused the most changes in the surface roughness of both resin composites. Keywords Alcohol; Chlorhexidine; Composite resin; Essential oil; Roughness.
Highlights
Restorative materials used in dentistry should be able to withstand chemical and mechanical effects in the oral environment for prolonged periods of time [1]
Of the two main factors evaluated in this study, there were no significant differences between the surface roughness of the resin composites (p> 0.05), but there were significant differences among the mouthrinses (p< 0.05) (Table IV)
The Filtek Z550 resin composite had no significant differences in surface roughness caused by the distilled water or the two alcohol-free mouthrinses (p< 0.05) (Table III)
Summary
Restorative materials used in dentistry should be able to withstand chemical and mechanical effects in the oral environment for prolonged periods of time [1]. A smooth surface provides aesthetic appear, and prevents plaque retention and discoloration. A smooth surface reduces the wear rate by lowering coefficient of friction and increases clinical success of the material [2]. Nanofil and nanohybrid resins were introduced along with the development of nanotechnology in the field of restorative dentistry [3]. Nanohybrid resin composites contain 0.010.04 nm sized and clustered agglomerate fillers that may lead to increased filler content better surface smoothness, increased wear resistance and gloss retention [2]. By virtue of their esthetic properties, nanocomposites are recommended to be used in both anterior and posterior restorations [3]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
