Cargando…

Influences of Successive Exposure to Bleaching and Fluoride Preparations on the Surface Hardness and Roughness of the Aged Resin Composite Restoratives

Background and Objectives: Surfaces of composite restorations are adversely affected upon bleaching and topical fluoride application. Such a procedure is normally carried out in the presence of restorations already serving in a different oral environment, although previous in vitro studies only cons...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Abdelaziz, Khalid M., Mir, Shugufta, Khateeb, Shafait Ullah, Baba, Suheel M., Alshahrani, Saud S., Alshahrani, Eman A., Alsafi, Zahra A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7557809/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32947937
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/medicina56090476
Descripción
Sumario:Background and Objectives: Surfaces of composite restorations are adversely affected upon bleaching and topical fluoride application. Such a procedure is normally carried out in the presence of restorations already serving in a different oral environment, although previous in vitro studies only considered the freshly-prepared composite specimens for assessment. The current study accordingly aimed to evaluate both the surface hardness and roughness of aged composite restoratives following their successive exposure to bleaching and topical fluoride preparations. Materials and Methods: Disc specimens were prepared from micro-hybrid, nano-filled, flowable and bulk-fill resin composites (groups 1–4, n = 60 each). All specimens were subjected to artificial aging before their intermittent exposure to surface treatment with: none (control), bleach or topical fluoride (subgroups 1–3, n = 20). All surface treatments were interrupted with two periods of 5000 thermal cycles. Specimens’ surfaces were then tested for both surface hardness (Vickers hardness number (VHN), n = 10) and roughness (Ra, n = 10). The collected VHNs and Ras were statistically analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey’s comparisons at α = 0.05 to confirm the significance of differences between subgroups. Results: None of the tested composites showed differences in surface hardness and roughness between the bleached and the non-treated specimens (p > 0.05), but the bleached flowable composite specimens only were rougher than their control (p < 0.000126). In comparison to the control, fluoride treatment not only reduced the surface hardness of both micro-hybrid (p = 0.000129) and flowable (p = 0.0029) composites, but also increased the surface roughness of all tested composites (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Aged composite restoratives provide minimal surface alterations on successive bleaching and fluoride applications. Flowable resin composite is the most affected by such procedures. Although bleaching seems safe for other types of composites, the successive fluoride application could deteriorate the aged surfaces of the tested resin composites.