Evaluation of the roughness and mass loss of the flowable composites after simulated toothbrushing abrasion.

The purpose of this study was to measure mass loss and surface roughness changes of different brands of flowable resin composites after a simulated toothbrushing test. The null hypotheses were that there would be no differences in mass loss and no significant changes in surface roughness after this test and that there would be no correlation between the two variables. The tested materials were Aeliteflo (Bisco), Flow-It (Pentron), Flow-It LF (Pentron), Natural Flow (DFL) and Wave (SDI). Z100 (3M/ESPE) microhybrid and Silux Plus (3M/ESPE) microfilled resin composites were used as control materials. Twelve specimens (5 mm in diameter, 3 mm thick) of each material were prepared according to manufacturers' instructions. Toothbrushing abrasion was performed on all specimens from each of the materials using a simulator. The percentage mass loss and surface roughness were assessed before and after 100,000 brushstrokes, using a Sartorius analytical balance of 0.0001 g accuracy and a Hommel Tester T1000, respectively. The measurements of both properties were statistically compared by paired t-test and Tukey's test (p < 0.05). All materials presented a statistically significant mass loss comparing initial and final values, with the exception of Flow-It LF. However, no difference was revealed when comparing the mass loss of the different tested materials. All materials became rougher and Wave presented statistically higher roughness compared to the other resin composites. Flowable resin composites did not seem to be superior to the control groups, and they can be expected to wear by mass loss and to have an increased roughness of surface after toothbrushing action. The anticipated null hypotheses were partially accepted.

[1]  A. R. Yazici,et al.  The effect of different types of flowable restorative resins on microleakage of Class V cavities. , 2003, Operative dentistry.

[2]  W. J. O'brien,et al.  Microstructure of posterior restorations of composite resin after clinical wear. , 1980, Operative dentistry.

[3]  S. Ebisu,et al.  Effect of resin monomer composition on toothbrush wear resistance. , 1998, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[4]  Fernanda Cristina Pimentel Garcia,et al.  Wear resistance of packable resin composites after simulated toothbrushing test. , 2004, Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.].

[5]  R. J. Grabenstetter,et al.  The Measurement of the Abrasion of Human Teeth by Dentifrice Abrasives: a Test Utilizing Radioactive Teeth , 1958, Journal of dental research.

[6]  G. Goldstein,et al.  The effect of toothbrushing on a hybrid composite resin. , 1991, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[7]  J. Y. Thompson,et al.  A characterization of first-generation flowable composites. , 1998, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[8]  D. Martin,et al.  The relationship of weight loss to surface roughness of composite resins from simulated toothbrushing. , 1982, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[9]  D. Rios,et al.  Wear and superficial roughness of glass ionomer cements used as sealants, after simulated toothbrushing. , 2002, Pesquisa odontologica brasileira = Brazilian oral research.

[10]  M C Serra,et al.  Surface roughness assessment of resin-based materials during brushing preceded by pH-cycling simulations. , 2001, Operative dentistry.

[11]  H. Wilson,et al.  A simple abrasion test for composites. , 1972, Journal of dentistry.

[12]  C. Emilson,et al.  Distribution and Prevalence of Mutans Streptococci in the Human Dentition , 1990, Journal of dental research.

[13]  E. Swift,et al.  Irradiance effects on the mechanical properties of universal hybrid and flowable hybrid resin composites. , 2003, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[14]  J. Ferracane Elution of leachable components from composites. , 1994, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[15]  E Asmussen,et al.  Influence of UEDMA BisGMA and TEGDMA on selected mechanical properties of experimental resin composites. , 1998, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[16]  J. Planell,et al.  Comparison of the abrasive wear resistance between amalgams, hybrid composite material and different dental cements. , 1999, International dental journal.

[17]  J. R. Aker New composite resins: comparison of their resistance to toothbrush abrasion and characteristics of abraded surfaces. , 1982, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[18]  M Atsuta,et al.  Analysis of composite type and different sources of polymerization light on in vitro toothbrush/dentifrice abrasion resistance. , 2000, Journal of dentistry.

[19]  L. Ehrnford Surface microstructure of composite resins after toothbrush-dentifrice abrasion. , 1983, Acta odontologica Scandinavica.