Medical and Dental Consultantsí Association of Nigeria
Home - About us - Editorial board - Search - Ahead of print - Current issue - Archives - Submit article - Instructions - Subscribe - Advertise - Contacts - Login 
  Users Online: 1   Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
 

  Table of Contents 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 25  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 248-254

The effect of erosive beverages and polishing systems on the surface properties of nanohybrid composite resin


1 Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Giresun University, Giresun, Turkey
2 Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Atatürk University, Erzurum, Turkey
3 Department of Prosthodontics, Hamidiye Faculty of Dentistry, University of Health Sciences, Istanbul, Turkey
4 Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Recep Tayyip Erdogan University, Rize, Turkey

Date of Submission26-Mar-2021
Date of Acceptance06-Sep-2021
Date of Web Publication16-Mar-2022

Correspondence Address:
Dr. B Ozdemir
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Giresun University, Giresun
Turkey
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/njcp.njcp_1361_21

Rights and Permissions
   Abstract 


Aims and Background: The aim of this study is to evaluate the surface microhardness and roughness of composites treated with three different polishing systems exposed to two different corrosive beverages. Material and Methods: Ninety-six composite resin disks were randomly divided into four groups, one of which was the control group. The surface roughness and microhardness values were measured after 24 h in the polishing process. The samples were divided into three subgroups and kept in distilled water, cola, and ice tea for 20 min a day for 14 days. Then, the roughness and microhardness measurements of the samples were taken again. Two samples randomly selected from each group were examined using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) and analyzed statistically using the two way anova (ANOVA) and Duncan tests. Results: A statistically significant difference was found between the roughness and hardness values at the end of 24 h and 14 days. Onegloss (OG), Dentoflex (DF), and Super-snap (SNP) polish systems showed the highest roughness in the cola group, respectively. Microhardness values: The unpolished group had the lowest significant microhardness in the coke group (P < 0.05). Conclusion: In this study, it was seen that the lowest success rate was the OG polishing system.

Keywords: Erosive beverages, microhardness, polishing system, roughness


How to cite this article:
Ozdemir B, Ilday N O, Ozdemir S B, Suleyman F, Duymus Z Y. The effect of erosive beverages and polishing systems on the surface properties of nanohybrid composite resin. Niger J Clin Pract 2022;25:248-54

How to cite this URL:
Ozdemir B, Ilday N O, Ozdemir S B, Suleyman F, Duymus Z Y. The effect of erosive beverages and polishing systems on the surface properties of nanohybrid composite resin. Niger J Clin Pract [serial online] 2022 [cited 2022 Aug 19];25:248-54. Available from: https://www.njcponline.com/text.asp?2022/25/3/248/339703




   Introduction Top


The use of aesthetic restorative materials; the acceleration of the developments in composites is increasing in parallel with the increase in the aesthetic expectations of the patients and the increasing success in the attachment processes. The composites are heterogeneous in structure and the resin matrices and fillers in their content are of different microhardness and prevent them from being polished.[1],[2] The filler type, particle size, filler amount, structure, and content in the composite resins affect physical properties, clinical application, and roughness.[3] For example, the microfill composites have poor physical properties even though they show good polishing properties. Microhybrid composites have been reported to be used more widely because they have both good polishability and strong physical properties.[4] Nanohybrid composites have been developed by combining good polishable properties of microfiber composites and superior physical properties of hybrid composites.[5],[6] Although the resin composites have obtained the smoothest surface using mylar strip, each restoration requires marginal adaptation and varnish.[7],[8] In addition, polishing must be done not only to obtain a smooth surface but also to eliminate the final composite layer with low physical properties.[9],[10]

The finishing and polishing processes affect the life of aesthetic restorations.[11],[12] Many polishing systems have been developed to eliminate the traces of finishing in the restoration and to ensure smoothness. These polishing systems consist of abrasive disks, diamond and carbide burs, stones, and tires. A smooth restoration with polishing treatment shows less plaque involvement, but less coloration, more aesthetics, and longer life.[13],[14] The finishing and polishing processes are important steps for patient satisfaction and the success of the restoration.[15],[16] The surface roughness is a two-dimensional parameter of the material surface and can be measured with a profilometer. The surface hardness can be described as a continuous sinking resistance.[17] The most used methods in dental microhardness measurements are Brinell, Rockwell, Vickers, and Knoop. It has been reported that Brinell and Rockwell microhardness tests can be used in metal alloys and Vickers and Knoop hardness tests can be used to measure the hardness of all materials used in dentistry such as gold, porcelain, composite resins, and cement.[17],[18] Not paying attention to nutritional habits in our society, consuming acidic drinks such as cola and energy drinks is known to affect the surface hardness and roughness of the ideal restoration in the mouth.[19],[20] Although there are studies in the literature on this subject, there are very few studies that examine the roughness and hardness parameters together and evaluate the polish systems together with the commonly used beverages. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of three different polishing systems after exposure to erosive drinks in terms of microhardness and roughness values.


   Materials and Methods Top


In this study, nanohybrid composite resin Clearfill Majesty A2 (Kuraray Medical Inc., Tokyo, Japan), four different polishing methods, and three different solutions were used [Table 1]. The disk-shaped samples were prepared from the composite resin using 2 mm thickness and 8 mm diameter Teflon molds. While preparing composite samples, a transparent tape was placed on both sides of the mold, and the oxygen inhibition layer was reduced to a minimum and smooth surfaces were obtained. The samples were polymerized with 20 s Woodpecker (LED.D, Guilin Woodpecker Medical Instrument Co, Guangxi, China, 850–1000 mW/cm2). The power of the light-curing device was controlled by a radiometer. All samples were sanded with 600, 800, and 1200 grid sandpaper, and surface polishing was performed. After the samples were kept at 37°C for 24 h, they were randomly divided into four groups, one of which was the control group. The application methods of the polishing systems are given in [Table 1]. No polish was applied to the control group and three different polishing systems were applied to the other groups by the same physician according to the manufacturer's instructions.
Table 1: Polishing systems, process steps, manufacturer, and lot number

Click here to view


The surface roughness and microhardness values were measured after 24 h in the polishing process. The samples were divided into three subgroups (n = 8) and kept in distilled water, cola, and ice tea for 20 minutes daily for 14 days [Table 2]. The solutions were changed daily and the samples removed from the solution were washed under water for 5 s and stored in distilled water. At the end of 14 days, the roughness and microhardness of the samples were measured and the values were recorded.
Table 2: Beverage, Manufacturer, and pH

Click here to view


With the profilometer device (Surtronic 25; Taylor Hobson, Leicester, UK), three measurements were taken in different directions from each sample. The average surface roughness values (Ra) were obtained. The microhardness measurements of the prepared samples were carried out on the Vickers hardness tester (Micromet 5114; Buehler Ltd, Lake Bluff, IL) by applying 100 g force to the surface of the samples for 15 s. The microhardness measurement was made from the surfaces of the samples from three different points between each measurement point, not less than 1 mm, and the average of these three measurements for each surface was obtained for each sample as a single value. Two randomly selected specimens of each group were sputter-coated with gold and examined using a field-emission scanning electron microscope (SEM, CB1, Cambridge, England). The results were recorded separately for hardness and roughness measurements. The SPSS 21.00 program was used to analyze the data. A P < 0.05 significance was analyzed statistically using the ANOVA and Duncan tests.


   Results Top


The average values and standard deviations obtained as a result of the microhardness and roughness tests were recorded. The values 24 h after applying the polishing systems are shown in [Table 3].
Table 3: Mean surface roughness and microhardness values±standard deviations of composite samples

Click here to view


A statistically significant difference was found between the microhardness and roughness values 24 h after polishing in the Onegloss (OG) polishing system (P < 0.05). The highest results for both the microhardness and roughness values were obtained in the OG polishing system (P < 0.05).

The average values after 14 days of immersion in different erosive drinks are shown in [Table 4]. A statistically significant difference was found between the roughness values at the end of 14 days in the samples kept in distilled water, cola, and ice tea (P < 0.05). The highest roughness value in the distilled water and ice tea groups belong to the OG polish system (P < 0.05) While there was no significant difference between the unpolished group and the Super-snap (SNP) groups from the cola samples, the highest roughness was observed in the OG, Dentoflex (DF), and SNP groups, respectively. There was a significant difference between the microhardness values at the end of 14 days. Among the hardness values, the non-polished group had the lowest significant hardness in the cola group. The highest values in terms of hardness and roughness in all lacquer groups were observed in the distilled water groups.
Table 4: Mean surface roughness and microhardness values ± standard deviations of composite samples

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


In dentistry, it is aimed to repair the loss of substance in the dental tissues due to various reasons, to protect the integrity of the dental tissues, and to ensure their continuity, to re-establish the function and aesthetics. While doing this, it is important to protect the remaining tissues at the same time. Therefore, choosing the right restorative material is important.[21] Composite resins developed for this purpose are frequently used in dentistry. The success of composite restoration is affected by many factors. The experience of the person making the restoration and the cavity preparation,[22] the characteristics of the material used, oral hygiene habits, and patient-related differences in the oral environment such as tooth fatigue,[23],[24] dentin resistance,[25] the location and size of the restoration, and finishing and polishing procedures[26] are some of the factors that affect the longevity of the restoration.

Although the smoothness of the surface of the restorations affects their durability and aesthetic appearance,[1] rough surfaces are not aesthetic and cause discoloration of the restoration,[27] plaque accumulation, gingivitis, and the development of secondary caries.[28] In this study, profilometry was used to measure the two-dimensional roughness of the samples. It has been reported that several test lines should be measured and averaged for the measurement of a particular sample with a profilometer.[29] Consistent with the studies performed, in our study, the measurements were taken from three points in different directions from each sample and the average roughness values were recorded.[30],[31],[32]

There are many different methods to finish and polish restorations, but the smoothest surface is with strip tape.[1],[33],[34] However, the use of strip tape alone has a limited effect on providing the tooth anatomy.[35] Therefore, it is necessary to use polishing systems. Traditionally, the ideal polishing protocols consist of a series of abrasives that gradually decrease from coarse to fine grains.[36],[37] The microhardness and size of the abrasives in the composite polishing systems are of great importance in composite abrasion and also creating a smooth surface after polishing. First, the abrasive particles in the polish systems must be harder than the fillers of the composites. Second, the abrasive particles must be smaller than the composite fillers to avoid scratches on the composite. For this reason, the multi-graded systems use a smaller grain polish system at each step to remove scratches in the previous polisher until a high gloss surface is obtained. For single-step systems, abrasive size is important due to the possibility of leaving scratches on the composites.[30],[38] Some studies have reported that multistep polish systems perform better than single-step polish systems.[30] According to Mohs' microhardness scale, the microhardness of the abrasives in the polish systems is listed as diamond > silicon carbide > tungsten carbide > aluminum oxide > zirconium silicate.[37] The OG polish system contains the aluminum oxide abrasive, while the SNP polish system contains silicon carbide and aluminum oxide. In a study conducted by Pierre et al.[39] which used 12 different polishing systems, including the OG and SNP polish systems, were evaluated on the surface roughness of different composite resins. The OG polish system showed the highest roughness. In the study where Pala et al.[40] evaluated the surface roughness of the polishing systems with the atomic force microscope (AFM) method, the OG polish system showed a high surface roughness. In this study, the OG polishing system showed the highest roughness value 24 h after polishing. This result may be due to the fact that it is a single-step polishing system and it contains low-hardness aluminum oxide abrasive.

The microhardness of the restorations made determines the lifetime of its restoration by resisting wear. The monomers that do not participate in reactions after polymerization reduce the hardness values of the restorative materials. The excessive organic content on the composite resin surface obtained under the transparent tape requires this layer to be removed by finishing and polishing. In this way, a harder and more wear-resistant composite surface is obtained.[41],[42] In this study, the OG polishing system showed the highest microhardness value after 24 h.

Diet awareness is an important issue in modern society. The consumption of erosive beverages is popular with today's youth and this habit proceeds to adulthood.[43] Cola and ice tea, which are the most consumed erosive beverages, were included in this study. The restorative materials in the mouth are exposed to chemical agents intermittently during the process, from food intake to tooth cleaning during the day, and as a result, they wear out.[44] It has been reported in studies that composite restorations tend to wear under acidic conditions.[45],[46],[47] In the studies investigating the effect of acidic beverages on restorative materials, it was found that the surface hardness of the materials decreased at different rates.[19] In accordance with this information, the microhardness values in all lacquer groups decreased after 14 days of exposure to erosive drinks. However, there was no significant difference between the cola and ice tea groups. When all polish groups are compared within themselves, the highest hardness value is seen in distilled water groups. This can be explained by the fact that the pH of distilled water is neutral, the pH of cola and iced tea are acidic and close to each other. Drinks have been shown to increase the surface roughness at different rates on restorative materials with different filler sizes.[48],[49] There was a difference in the roughness values after 14 days of exposure to erosive drinks. Among the polishing systems, the distilled water groups are rougher than the other erosive beverages. Similar results to this study were reported in the study performed by Sadeghi et al.[48] on the roughness of the polishing systems and beverages of composites. This situation can be explained by the fact that roughness is a surface feature, and it is affected by water absorption depending on the properties of complex composites.[48],[50] Therefore, longer studies are needed to evaluate the effect of beverages on the surface roughness of composites more objectively.

The requirement that the measuring surface be flat in the hardness and roughness devices used in this study can be regarded as the limitations of this study. During hardness measurements of a rough surface, the measuring tip of the device cannot reach the entire surface of the material and this results in lower hardness values. The presence of a more planar surface, on the other hand, causes the measuring tip to encounter a continuous resistance, resulting in higher hardness values.[51] In addition, it is not clear to what extent compression during the measurement and thermal changes during the polishing process affect the hardness measurements.[52],[53] The profilometer used in the roughness measurement allows us to make two-dimensional measurements, but it is difficult in the measurements of soft surfaces. It works over a large area by measuring along a line on a surface with its[54] profilometer device. This may enable us to see high values in the profilometer.[55] It has been reported that more valid predictions of clinical performance can be made when surface roughness measurements are combined with an SEM analysis.[56] Considering the limitations of these tests, we reinforced our study with SEM analysis as in similar studies.[29],[30],[31]

After 14 days of waiting in the cola [Figure 1]c, [Figure 1]d, [Figure 1]e, [Figure 1]f and distilled water [Figure 1]a and [Figure 1]b, the SEM images are given below. There are significant differences between the polishing groups after 14 days of exposure to the cola. The OG, DF, and SNP groups showed the highest roughness, respectively [Figure 1]c, [Figure 1]d, [Figure 1]e. They showed the lowest roughness with no significant difference between the SNP and unpolished groups [Figure 1]e and [Figure 1]f. There was a significant difference between the groups waiting in distilled water for 14 days. While the highest roughness was shown by the OG polishing system, the lowest roughness was shown by the unpolished group [Figure 1]a and [Figure 1]b.
Figure 1: (a) SEM image of the unpolished group (14 days in distilled water). (b) SEM image of the composite with Onegloss polishing system (14 days in distilled water). (c) Onegloss polishing system (14 days in cola). (d) DF polish system (14 days in cola). (e) Super-snap polish system (14 days in cola). (f) Unpolished group (14 days in cola). The area indicated by the arrow is the erosion islands formed by the cola in the unpolished group

Click here to view



   Conclusion Top


Within the limits of this study, it has been determined that the hardness and roughness values of the composites vary according to the polish system used and the erosive beverage that is kept, but the polish system with the lowest success rate is the OG polish system.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
   References Top

1.
Yap AUJ, Yap SH, Teo CK, Ng JJ. Finishing/polishing of composite and compomer restoratives: Effectiveness of one-step systems. Oper Dent 2004;29:275-9.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Filho HN, D'Azevedo MTFS, Nagem HD, Marsola FP. Surface roughness of composite resins after finishing and polishing. Braz Dent J 2003;14:37-41.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Koh R, Neiva G, Dennison J, Yaman P. Finishing systems on the final surface roughness of composites. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008;9:138-45.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Ritter AV. Direct resin-based composites: Current recommendations for optimal clinical results. Compendium 2006;26:369-77.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Turssi CP, Saad J, Duarte S Jr, Rodrigues A Jr. Composite surfaces after finishing and polishing techniques. Am J Dent 2000;13:136-8.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Moszner N, Klapdohr S. Nanotechnology for dental composites. Int J Nanotechnol 2004;1:130-56.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Ergücü Z, Türkün LS. Surface roughness of novel resin composites polished with one-step systems. Oper Dent 2007;32:185-92.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Janus J, Fauxpoint G, Arntz Y, Pelletier H, Etienne O. Surface roughness and morphology of three nanocomposites after two different polishing treatments by a multitechnique approach. Dent Mater 2010;26:416-25.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Ergücü Z, Türkün LS, Aladag A. Color stability of nanocomposites polished with one-step systems. Oper Dent 2008;33:413-20.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Gordan VV, Patel SB, Barrett AA, Shen C. Effect of surface finishing and storage media on bi-axial flexure strength and microhardness of resin-based composite. Oper Dent 2003;28:560-7.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Strassler HE, Bauman G. Current concepts in polishing composite resins. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 1993;5(3 Suppl 1):12-7.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Weitman RT, Eames WB. Plaque accumulation on composite surfaces after various finising procedures. J Am Dent Assoc 1975;91:101-6.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Goldstein RE. Finishing of composites and laminates. Dent Clin North Am 1989;33:305-18, 210-9.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Hondrum SO, Fernandez R Jr. Contouring, finishing, and polishing class 5 restorative materials. Oper Dent 1997;22:30-6.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Ryba TM, Dunn WJ, Murchison DF. Surface roughness of various packable composites. Oper Dent 2002;27:243-7.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
McKinney JE, Antonucci JM, Rupp NW. Wear and microhardness of glass-ionomer cements. J Dent Res 1987;66:1134-9.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Örtengren U, Wellendorf H, Karlsson S, Ruyter IE. Water sorption and solubility of dental composites and identification of monomers released in an aqueous environment. J Oral Rehabil 2001;28:1106-15.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Tahmassebi J, Duggal M, Malik-Kotru G, Curzon M. Soft drinks and dental health: A review of the current literature. J Dent 2006;34:2-11.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Aliping-McKenzie M, Linden RWA, Nicholson JW. The effect of Coca-Cola and fruit juices on the surface hardness of glass-ionomers and 'compomers'. J Oral Rehabil 2004;31:1046-52.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Grippo JO, Simring M, Schreiner S. Attrition, abrasion, corrosion and abfraction revisited: A new perspective on tooth surface lesions. J Am Dent Assoc 2004;135:1109-18; quiz 1163-5.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Homaei E, Farhangdoost K, Akbari M. An investigation into finding the optimum combination for dental restorations. J Comput Appl Res Mech Eng 2016;6:1-9.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Maghami E, Homaei E, Farhangdoost K, Pow EHN, Matinlinna JP, Tsoi JK-H. Effect of preparation design for all-ceramic restoration on maxillary premolar: A 3D finite element study. J Prosthodont Res 2018;62:436-42.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Homaei E, Jin X-Z, Pow EHN, Matinlinna JP, Tsoi JK-H, Farhangdoost K. Numerical fatigue analysis of premolars restored by CAD/CAM ceramic crowns. Dent Mater 2018;34:e149-57.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Homaei E, Farhangdoost K, Pow EHN, Matinlinna JP, Akbari M, Tsoi JK-H. Fatigue resistance of monolithic CAD/CAM ceramic crowns on human premolars. Ceram Int 2016;42:15709-17.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Maghami E, Pejman R, Najafi AR. Fracture micromechanics of human dentin: A microscale numerical model. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2021;114:104171.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Ferracane J, Mitchem J, Condon J, Todd R. Wear and marginal breakdown of composites with various degrees of cure. J Dent Res 1997;76(8):1508-16.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Cavalcante LM, Masouras K, Watts DC, Pimenta LA, Silikas N. Effect of nanofillers' size on surface properties after toothbrush abrasion. Am J Dent 2009;22:60-4.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Ono M, Nikaido T, Ikeda M, Imai S, Hanada N, Tagami J, et al. Surface properties of resin composite materials relative to biofilm formation. Dent Mater J 2007;26:613-22.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Chappard D, Degasne I, Hure G, Legrand E, Audran M, Basle M. Image analysis measurements of roughness by texture and fractal analysis correlate with contact profilometry. Biomaterials 2003;24:1399-407.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Rodrigues-Junior S, Chemin P, Piaia P, Ferracane J. Surface roughness and gloss of actual composites as polished with different polishing systems. Oper Dent 2015;40:418-29.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Camilotti V, Mendonça MJ, Dobrovolski M, Detogni AC, Ambrosano GMB, De Goes MF. Impact of dietary acids on the surface roughness and morphology of composite resins. J Oral Sci 2021;63:18-21.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Nasoohi N, Hoorizad M, Tabatabaei SF. Effects of wet and dry finishing and polishing on surface roughness and microhardness of composite resins. J Dent (Tehran) 2017;14:69-75.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Hondrum SO, Seng GF, Rebert NW. Stability of local anesthetics in the dental cartridge. Anesth Pain Control Dent 1993;2:198-202.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Yap A, Mok BYY. Surface finish of a new hybrid aesthetic restorative material. Oper Dent 2002;27:161-6.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Özgünaltay G, Yazici AR, Görücü J. Effect of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface roughness of new tooth-coloured restoratives. J Oral Rehabil 2003;30:218-24.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Jefferies SR. The art and science of abrasive finishing and polishing in restorative dentistry. Dent Clin North Am 1998;42:613-27.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Jefferies SR. Abrasive finishing and polishing in restorative dentistry: A state-of-the-art review. Dent Clin North Am 2007;51:379-97, ix.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Jung M, Eichelberger K, Klimek J. Surface geometry of four nanofiller and one hybrid composite after one-step and multiple-step polishing. Oper Dent 2007;32:347-55.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
St-Pierre L, Martel C, Crépeau H, Vargas M. Influence of polishing systems on surface roughness of composite resins: Polishability of composite resins. Oper Dent 2019;44:E122-32.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Pala K, Tekce N, Tuncer S, Serim ME, Demirci M. Evaluation of the surface hardness, roughness, gloss and color of composites after different finishing/polishing treatments and thermocycling using a multitechnique approach. Dent Mater J 2016;35:278-89.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Morgan M. Finishing and polishing of direct posterior resin restorations. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent 2004;16:211-7; quiz 218.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
Türkün LS, Türkün M. The effect of one-step polishing system on the surface roughness of three esthetic resin composite materials. Oper Dent 2004;29:203-11.  Back to cited text no. 42
    
43.
Jarvinen V, Rytomaa I, Heinonen O. Risk factors in dental erosion. J Dent Res 1991;70:942-7.  Back to cited text no. 43
    
44.
Rios D, Honório HM, Francisconi LF, Magalhães AC, de Andrade Moreira Machado MA, Buzalaf MAR. In situ effect of an erosive challenge on different restorative materials and on enamel adjacent to these materials. J Dent 2008;36:152-7.  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.
De Moor RJ, Verbeeck RM. Effect of acetic acid on the fluoride release profiles of restorative glass ionomer cements. Dent Mater 1998;14:261-8.  Back to cited text no. 45
    
46.
Nicholson J, Millar B, Czarnecka B, Limanowska-Shaw H. Storage of polyacid-modified resin composites (“compomers”) in lactic acid solution. Dent Mater 1999;15(:413-6.  Back to cited text no. 46
    
47.
Chadwick R, McCabe J, Walls A, Storer R. The effect of storage media upon the surface microhardness and abrasion resistance of three composites. Dent Mater 1990;6:123-8.  Back to cited text no. 47
    
48.
Sadeghi M, Deljoo Z, Bagheri R. The influence of surface polish and beverages on the roughness of nanohybrid and microhybri resin composite. J Dent Biomater 2016;3:177-85.  Back to cited text no. 48
    
49.
Tavangar M, Bagheri R, Kwon TY, Mese A, Manton DJ. Influence of beverages and surface roughness on the color change of resin composites. J Investig Clin Dent 2018;9:e12333.  Back to cited text no. 49
    
50.
Torabi Ardakani M, Atashkar B, Bagheri R, Burrow MF. Impact of bleaching agents on water sorption and solubility of resin luting cements. J Investig Clin Dent 2017;8:e12224.  Back to cited text no. 50
    
51.
Flury S, Peutzfeldt A, Lussi A. Influence of surface roughness on mechanical properties of two Computer-aided design/Computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) ceramic materials. Oper Dent 2012;37:617-24.  Back to cited text no. 51
    
52.
Giordano R, Cima M, Pober R. Effect of surface finish on the flexural strength of feldspathic and aluminous dental ceramics. Int J Prosthodont 1995;8:311-9.  Back to cited text no. 52
    
53.
Albakry M, Guazzato M, Swain MV. Effect of sandblasting, grinding, polishing and glazing on the flexural strength of two pressable all-ceramic dental materials. J Dent 2004;32:91-9.  Back to cited text no. 53
    
54.
Arvidsson A, Milleding P, Wennerberg A. The influence of a chemo-mechanical caries removal solution on the topography of dental ceramic materials. Biomaterials 2002;23:3977-83.  Back to cited text no. 54
    
55.
Leitao J. Surface roughness and porosity of dental amalgam. Acta Odontol Scand 1982;40:9-16.  Back to cited text no. 55
    
56.
Jung M, Sehr K, Klimek J. Surface texture of four nanofilled and one hybrid composite after finishing. Oper Dent 2007;32:45-52.  Back to cited text no. 56
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]



 

Top
  
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed768    
    Printed24    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded102    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal