Cargando…

Comparative Evaluation of Microhardness by Common Drinks on Esthetic Restorative Materials and Enamel: An in vitro Study

AIM: This study was aimed to evaluate effects of various beverages on microhardness of esthetic restorative materials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 160 disk-like specimens were prepared with 40 specimens each using nanocomposite resin, nano-ionomer, compomer, and conventional composite resin as...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gupta, Roli, Madan, Manish, Dua, Parminder, Saini, Sheeba, Mangla, Ritu, Kainthla, Trilok, Dupper, Akash
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6102431/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30131633
http://dx.doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1503
_version_ 1783349161420128256
author Gupta, Roli
Madan, Manish
Dua, Parminder
Saini, Sheeba
Mangla, Ritu
Kainthla, Trilok
Dupper, Akash
author_facet Gupta, Roli
Madan, Manish
Dua, Parminder
Saini, Sheeba
Mangla, Ritu
Kainthla, Trilok
Dupper, Akash
author_sort Gupta, Roli
collection PubMed
description AIM: This study was aimed to evaluate effects of various beverages on microhardness of esthetic restorative materials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 160 disk-like specimens were prepared with 40 specimens each using nanocomposite resin, nano-ionomer, compomer, and conventional composite resin as experimental groups. Forty primary teeth were prepared and mounted in acrylic to be used as control group. Microhardness of the restorative materials was measured using Vickers microhardness tester at baseline and after immersion in various beverages. The difference between the two readings was evaluated within different groups. RESULTS: In general, low pH beverages adversely affected the properties of the tested materials. Microhardness of tested materials was significantly decreased after immersion in various beverages with the exception of Yakult. After the immersion period, the enamel showed the maximum loss in microhardness followed by nano-ionomer. CONCLUSION: Low pH beverages were the most aggressive media for enamel, nano-ionomer and compomer, but in contrast, composite resin was relatively less affected. Probiotic drink appeared relatively benign toward the tested materials. How to cite this article: Gupta R, Madan M, Dua P, Saini S, Mangla R, Kainthla T, Dupper A. Comparative Evaluation of Microhardness by Common Drinks on Esthetic Restorative Materials and Enamel: An in vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2018;11(3):155-160.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6102431
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61024312018-08-21 Comparative Evaluation of Microhardness by Common Drinks on Esthetic Restorative Materials and Enamel: An in vitro Study Gupta, Roli Madan, Manish Dua, Parminder Saini, Sheeba Mangla, Ritu Kainthla, Trilok Dupper, Akash Int J Clin Pediatr Dent Original Article AIM: This study was aimed to evaluate effects of various beverages on microhardness of esthetic restorative materials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 160 disk-like specimens were prepared with 40 specimens each using nanocomposite resin, nano-ionomer, compomer, and conventional composite resin as experimental groups. Forty primary teeth were prepared and mounted in acrylic to be used as control group. Microhardness of the restorative materials was measured using Vickers microhardness tester at baseline and after immersion in various beverages. The difference between the two readings was evaluated within different groups. RESULTS: In general, low pH beverages adversely affected the properties of the tested materials. Microhardness of tested materials was significantly decreased after immersion in various beverages with the exception of Yakult. After the immersion period, the enamel showed the maximum loss in microhardness followed by nano-ionomer. CONCLUSION: Low pH beverages were the most aggressive media for enamel, nano-ionomer and compomer, but in contrast, composite resin was relatively less affected. Probiotic drink appeared relatively benign toward the tested materials. How to cite this article: Gupta R, Madan M, Dua P, Saini S, Mangla R, Kainthla T, Dupper A. Comparative Evaluation of Microhardness by Common Drinks on Esthetic Restorative Materials and Enamel: An in vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2018;11(3):155-160. Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers 2018 2018-06-01 /pmc/articles/PMC6102431/ /pubmed/30131633 http://dx.doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1503 Text en Copyright © 2018; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
spellingShingle Original Article
Gupta, Roli
Madan, Manish
Dua, Parminder
Saini, Sheeba
Mangla, Ritu
Kainthla, Trilok
Dupper, Akash
Comparative Evaluation of Microhardness by Common Drinks on Esthetic Restorative Materials and Enamel: An in vitro Study
title Comparative Evaluation of Microhardness by Common Drinks on Esthetic Restorative Materials and Enamel: An in vitro Study
title_full Comparative Evaluation of Microhardness by Common Drinks on Esthetic Restorative Materials and Enamel: An in vitro Study
title_fullStr Comparative Evaluation of Microhardness by Common Drinks on Esthetic Restorative Materials and Enamel: An in vitro Study
title_full_unstemmed Comparative Evaluation of Microhardness by Common Drinks on Esthetic Restorative Materials and Enamel: An in vitro Study
title_short Comparative Evaluation of Microhardness by Common Drinks on Esthetic Restorative Materials and Enamel: An in vitro Study
title_sort comparative evaluation of microhardness by common drinks on esthetic restorative materials and enamel: an in vitro study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6102431/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30131633
http://dx.doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1503
work_keys_str_mv AT guptaroli comparativeevaluationofmicrohardnessbycommondrinksonestheticrestorativematerialsandenamelaninvitrostudy
AT madanmanish comparativeevaluationofmicrohardnessbycommondrinksonestheticrestorativematerialsandenamelaninvitrostudy
AT duaparminder comparativeevaluationofmicrohardnessbycommondrinksonestheticrestorativematerialsandenamelaninvitrostudy
AT sainisheeba comparativeevaluationofmicrohardnessbycommondrinksonestheticrestorativematerialsandenamelaninvitrostudy
AT manglaritu comparativeevaluationofmicrohardnessbycommondrinksonestheticrestorativematerialsandenamelaninvitrostudy
AT kainthlatrilok comparativeevaluationofmicrohardnessbycommondrinksonestheticrestorativematerialsandenamelaninvitrostudy
AT dupperakash comparativeevaluationofmicrohardnessbycommondrinksonestheticrestorativematerialsandenamelaninvitrostudy