Influence of mouth rinses on the surface hardness of bulk-fill resin composite (original) (raw)
Related papers
Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences, 2020
Aim: Bulk Fill composite resins were released on the market in order to reduce the time in clinical sessions by using increments of up to 5.0 mm thickness. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of the rinsing solutions on the surface roughness of the conventional composite and Bulk fill composite resins. Methods: 40 specimens were prepared from a 4.0mm x 10.0mm teflon matrix and photoactivated for 20 seconds, with 20 specimens made of Filtek Bulk-Fill composite resin (3M ESPE) and 20 specimens made with Filtek™ Z350 XT composite resin (3M ESPE). Each group was subdivided into 2 subgroups: G1 (Filtek™ Z350 XT-3M ESPE-immersed in Colgate PlaxWhitening®); G2 (Filtek™ Z350 XT-3M ESPE-immersed in PlaxFreshMint®); G3 (Filtek™ Bulk-Fill-3M ESPE-immersed in Colgate PlaxWhitening®) and G4 (Filtek™ Bulk-Fill-3M ESPE-immersed in Colgate PlaxFreshMint®). The surface roughness test was performed initially and after immersion in rinses by the Time Group Inc.-TR200® rugosimeter apparatu...
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 ...
Effect of ethanol in mouthwashes on the surface hardness of a dental resin composite material
Padjadjaran Journal of Dentistry, 2009
The previous study has shown that dental resins exhibited changes in the surface hardness when soaked in alcoholic beverages. As ethanol was one of the components contained in some commercial mouthwashes, therefore, the present study aimed at the effect of ethanol in some mouthwashes on the surface hardness of a dental resin composite. Specimens were prepared from a light cured dental resin composite. The specimens were then immersed in some commercial mouthwashes for periods up to 14 days. The surface hardness of the specimens was then measured using a Microhardness tester. The results displayed reductions in surface hardness (p<0,01), upon one day of immersing the specimens in Bactidol®, Listerine® or Minosepe® mouthwash, respectively. The surface hardness curves from each mouthwash demonstrated a similar pattern which approached a plateau near 2 weeks. It can be concluded that the ethanol-containing mouthwashes appeared to have more implication on surface hardness of the denta...
Oral health and dental management, 2014
The longevity and durability of composite resins are influenced by the actions of water, saliva, drinks, food and features of the oral environment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of mouthwashes containing alcohol on the surface hardness, sorption and solubility of composite resins. Disc-shaped specimens were prepared with two composite resins Z250 (Z2) and Z350XT (Z3). Measurements of Vickers hardness were performed before and after immersion in Plax, PerioGard, Listerine, ethanol and distilled water for 12 h at 37°C, followed by a further 12 h at 37°C in artificial saliva. Sorption and solubility were performed according to ISO 4049. Data were analysed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey tests (α=0.05). None of the mouthwashes significantly reduced the hardness of the resin Z2 (p>0.05). The greatest change in resin Z3 hardness was produced by PerioGard (p<0.01). Plax produced the lowest changes in the sorption and solubility of resins Z2 and Z3 (p<0.01), follow...
Influence of mouth rinses on the surface hardness of dental resin nano-composite
Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences, 2015
Objective: The aim of this research was to assess the effect of mouth rinses with and without alcohol on the hardness of dental nano-filled composite. Methods: The micro-hardness of fifty circular disk shaped specimens of 7 mm x 2 mm were measured after 14 days. Specimens were immersed into alcohol containing (Listerine and Colgate Perioguard) and alcohol-free (Prodent and Sensodyne Oral antiseptic) mouth rinse solutions. Artificial saliva served as the control. Vickers Micro-hardness was measured with a 30gram load for 30 seconds dwell time by using a diamond indenter. Significant differences were represented by p<0.05, whereas highly significant difference represented by p<0.01. The level of significance (p) was calculated with the help of repeated measure ANOVA. For multiple comparisons, Tukey’s multiple comparison test was used. Results: Statistical analysis revealed highly significant difference between specimens immersed in artificial saliva (control) and Listerine (p<0.01). Whereas significant difference were observed between control and Colgate Periogard (p<0.05). However, no significant difference was observed on comparing Prodent and Sensodyne Oral antiseptic mouth rinses with control group(p>0.05). Control specimens depicted highest value of micro-hardness(60.5746 ± 3.2703) compared to the lowest value seen in specimens immersed in Listerine solvent(54.4687 ± 1.0937). Conclusion: Alcohol containing mouth rinsing solutions have more deleterious effect on hardness of nano composites as compared to alcohol-free mouth rinses.
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).
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.