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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |