Effect of Mouthrinses on Surface Microhardness of Selected Dental Composites (original) (raw)
Objective: To compare the surface microhardness of composites(Spectrum®TPH, Filtek™Z350, Ceram•X mono and Ceram•X duo-enamel shade) before and after immersion in alcohol containing mouthrinses (Listerine), alcohol-free mouthrinses (Oral-B) and experimental herbal mouthrinses based on plant extract (mouthrinses X, Y and Z). Methods: 60 disc-shaped specimens of approximately 10mm x 2mm were perpared from various composites using perspex split mould and was cured for 40 seconds. The irradiated surface was polished using Sof-Lex pop-on polishing discs. The specimens were randomly divided to 6 groups. Microhardness was recorded before immersion (control group) using a load of 200g for 15 seconds using Vickers microhardness tester, (Shimadzu Corp, Kyoto, Japan). All specimens were then immersed in 20ml of Listerine,Oral B- Tooth and gum care alcohol-free mouth rinses, Experimental Mouth rinses X, Y and Z and distilled water for 24 hours at 37º C, after which micro hardness value was measured again. Data collected was analyzed using one-way ANOVA / Games-Howell post-hoc test for multiple comparisons between groups. Specimens were also subjected to surface analysis using AFM (Ambios Technology Universal Scanning Probe Microscopy™).Results: Filtek Z350 exhibited the highest Vickers microhardness number (VHN) and Ceram X Duo had the lowest VHN before immersion. All tested composite showed significant decreased in surface microhardness (VHN) compared to before immersion. Filtek Z350 showed the highest VHN and TPH Spectrum showed the lowest VHN after immersion. Ceram X Duo showed the roughest surface before immersion. The surface roughness of Ceram X Mono was high when immersed in experimental mouthrinses. Conclusions: Filtek Z350 exhibited significantly higher VHN compared to other composites tested. All composites showed significant decreased in VHN compared to before immersion. There was no significant different of VHN between mouthrinses, however it was material dependent. This study was supported by the Vot F:Grant no F0350/2005C, University of Malaya.
Related papers
European journal of dentistry, 2022
OBJECTIVES Bulk-filled composite resins are popularly used for posterior restorations due to various advantages. Routine oral hygiene measures like toothbrushing and the use of various mouthrinses can influence the mechanical properties of composite resins. Desensitizing mouthrinses are widely used as well, to manage dentinal hypersensitivity. Studies on the influence of desensitizing mouthrinses on bulk-filled composites are limited. Hence, the objective of the present in vitro study was to evaluate the influence of toothbrushing and various desensitizing mouthrinses on the surface roughness and microhardness of Tetric N-Ceram bulk-fill composite resin. MATERIALS AND METHODS Fifty Tetric N-Ceram bulk-fill composite resin disks were prepared and were randomly divided into five groups (n = 10). Group 1 (Control): no toothbrushing and no mouthrinse; Group 2: toothbrushing only; Group 3: toothbrushing + HiOra-K mouthrinse; Group 4: toothbrushing + Listerine Sensitive mouthrinse; and ...
IP Innovative Publication Pvt. Ltd, 2017
Aim and Objectives: The aim of the present in-vitro study was to evaluate and compare the effect of five commercially available mouthrinses i.e. Listerine, Benzydamine, Rexidine, Proflo, Hiora on the microhardness of the hybrid composite restorative material. Materials and Method: Fifty specimens were prepared withHybrid Composite Restorative Material (Te-Econom Plus) and immersed in Saleve (artificial saliva; supplied by the manufacturer) for 24hr. The baseline microhardness of specimens was recorded using Vicker's microhardness tester.The pH of mouthrinses was recorded with digital pH meter. All 50 specimens were divided into five groups of 10 samples each and immersed into20 ml of-Group I-Listerine (alcohol based) mouthrinse, Group II-Benzydamine (HCl based) mouthrinse,Group III-Rexidin (Chlorhex based) mouthrinse, Group IV-Proflo (fluoride containing) mouthrinse, and Group V-Hiora (alcohol free, herbal) mouthrinse and incubated for 24hr at 37ºC. After immersion the microhardness values of the specimens were recorded again and the data was tabulated for statistical analysis. Kruskal–Wallis test was used for inter group comparison followed by pairwise comparison of groups using Mann–Whitney U test. Results: All mouthrinses tested showed decreased microhardness of the Te-Econom Plus (hybrid composite restorative material) (P<0.001). Group I-(Listerine) showed highest reduction while Group II-(Benzydamine) showed the lowest reduction in the microhardnessof the hybrid composite restorative material respectively. Conclusion: All the five groups decreased the microhardness of the Hybrid Composite Restorative Material. The highest reduction in microhardness was found in alcohol-containing mouthrinse (Listerine).
Surface Microhardness of Microhybrid and Nanocomposite After Storage in Mouth Washes
Journal of Ayub Medical College Abbottabad
Background: Dental composites are aesthetic direct restorative material. However, the effect of mouthwashes on the durability of the material is controversial. This study evaluated and compared the influence of mouthwash composition on the surface hardness of nanofilled (Z350XT) and microhybrid (P60) resin composites. Methods: Comparative in-vitro study was conducted over 6 months at Multan Medical & Dental College. Sixty-four disc-shape specimens of each {nanofilled (Z350XT) and microhybrid (P60)} resin composite were prepared and stored in distilled water at 37°C for 24 hours. The baseline microhardness reading (To) was recorded by Vickers micro-hardness tester. Samples were then randomly divided into four groups (n=16) and stored in Listerine Cool Mint, Colgate Plax, Clinica and distilled water (control). The hardness test was repeated after 12 hours and 24 hours of storage. Results: Nanocomposite (Z350XT) had statistically (p<0.01) higher surface hardness. A significant reduc...
Aim and Objectives: This in vitro study was designed to comparatively evaluate the effect of a chlorhexidine based mouthwash and a herbal mouthwash on the microhardness of nanofilled and nanohybrid composite resin. Materials and Methods: 60 discs of nanofilled and nanohybrid composite resins were prepared, 30 for each type of composite. The specimens of each type of composite were divided randomly into three subgroups, each containing 10 specimens (n=10) as follows ? Subgroup I Control (Distilled water), Subgroup II Herbal based mouthwash (Hiora) and Subgroup III Chlorhexidine based mouthwash (Hexidine). The specimens were immersed in 20 ml of the mouthrinses and incubated for 12 hrs at 37o C. The specimens were then subjected for micro hardness measurement using Vicker?s hardness tester and the results were analysed statistically using ANOVA and unpaired t test. Results: Significant reduction in the microhardness was observed in both the groups after immersion in the mouth rinses compared to the control group and the reduction in mean VHN were as follows: Group I, GroupII and Group III. Conclusion: Both the mouthrinses showed a reduction in the microhardness of nanohybrid and nanofilled resin composite with Hexidine (Group III) showing the highest reduction in microhardness value.
Influence of mouth rinses on the surface hardness of bulk-fill resin composite
IP innovative publication pvt. ltd, 2019
Introduction: Consumption of certain Mouthrinses may affect the physical properties of the BulkFill composite. Aim: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of Six different Mouthrinses (i) Listerine (ii) Periogard (iii) Povicidal (iv) Hexidine (v) Hexidine EP (vi) Hiora, on surface microhardness bulk-fill sculptable composite resin (SoniFill). Materials and Methods: Sixty specimens of a bulk-fill resin composite material taken in acrylic mold. Each specimen will be cured for 40 s from the top and another 40 s from the bottom using LED light cure unit at 1200 mW/cm2. The baseline micro hardness values of the specimens will be recorded prior to immersion in the mouth rinses. Microhardness will be measured using Vicker's micro hardness tester. The specimens will then be immersed in 20ml of respective mouth rinses with both sides of specimen exposed and kept in an incubator at 37o C for 24h. Microhardness values will then be checked for each specimen using the same microhardness tester and same load and dwell time as previously mentioned above for pre-immersion test. Results: According to the result of the present study, prior to immersion, Sonicfill resin composite showed no significant difference in mean hardness before immersion between groups 1(Listerine), 2(Periogard), 3(Provicidal), 4(Hexidine), 5(Hexidine Ep) and 6(Hiora). Therefore, the null hypothesis all the mouth rinses used in the study irrespective of the presence or absence of alcohol reduced the micro hardness of Bulkfilled resin composite. Conclusions: All the Mouthrinses used in this study reduce the surface hardness in the materials tested.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.