Effect of Nutrients and Medicines on Surface of Compomer

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 22 Sayı: 2, 211 - 217, 31.05.2019

Tamara Pelin Gündoğdu Özdal Gülsüm Duruk

https://doi.org/10.7126/cumudj.503814

Öz

Objectives: The
objective of this study is to examine the effect of nutrients and medicines
frequently consumed by children on the surface roughness of the
Polyacid-Modified Composite Resin (compomer), a restorative material
typically used in pediatric dentistry.

Materials and Methods: VOCO
Glasiosite® Caps compomer was used as the restoration material. Seven control
groups consisting of nutrients and medicines frequently consumed by children
from 0-6 years (Group 1: Ferro Sanol® B (150 ml) syrup, Group 2: Augmentin®-BID
(400 mg/57 mg) suspension, Group 3: Calpol® (120 mg/150 ml ), Group 4: Bebelac®
Gold 5 follow-on milk, Group 5: Danino® strawberry yogurt, Group 6: Nesquik®
chocolate milk, Group 7: Cappy® orange juice) were formed and their pH values
were measured. Compomer discs were created and their initial surface roughness
was measured by Bruker® Stylus Profilometer. Taking into consideration its
annual usage period, compomer material was brought in contact with
solutions. Then the roughness test was repeated. SEM images of each compomer
material were taken and compared with the control group.

Results: The evaluation
of the medicine group revealed that Ferro Sanol® B displays the highest level
of surface roughness difference (23.3 nm). As to the nutrients group, Cappy®
orange juice showed the highest surface roughness difference (21.4 nm). SEM
images support these findings.

Conclusions: The effect of
the solutions on the surface roughness of filling surfaces increases depending
on their acidity. However, it is believed that pH solely does not have any
impact. These studies should be supported by corrosion experiments.

Anahtar Kelimeler

surface properties, compomers, foods, drug utilization

Kaynakça

• Gonulol N, Yilmaz F. The effects of finishing and polishing techniques on surface roughness and color stability of nanocomposites. J Dent 2012;40 Suppl 2:e64-70.
• Valentini F, Oliveira SG, Guimaraes GZ, Barbosa RP, Moraes RR. Effect of surface sealant on the color stability of composite resin restorations. Braz Dent J 2011;22(5):365-8.
• Soncini, J. A., Maserejian, N. N., Trachtenberg, F., Tavares, M., & Hayes, C. The longevity of amalgam versus compomer/composite restorations in posterior primary and permanent teeth: findings From the New England Children's Amalgam Trial. The Journal of the American Dental Association 2007; 138(6), 763-772.
• 4. Toledano M., De La Torre F.J. and Osorio R.: Evaluation of two polishing methods for resin composites, Am J Dent 1994;7:328-30.
• 5. Shintani H., Satou J., Satou N., Hatashihara H. and Inoue T.: Effects of various finishing methods on staining and accumulation of Streptococcus mutans HS-6 on composite resins, Dent Mater 1985;1: 225-7.
• 6.Van Dijken, J. W. V., & Sjöström, S. Development of gingivitis around aged restorations of resin-modified glass ionomer cement, polyacid-modified resin composite (compomer) and resin composite. Clinical oral investigations 1998; 2(4), 180-183.
• 7. Vieira A, Lugtenborg M, Ruben JL, Huysmans MC. Brushing abrasion of eroded bovine enamel pretreated with topical fluorides. Caries Res. 2006; 40: 224-30.
• 8. Geurtsen W., Leyhausen G. and Garcia Godoy F.: Effect of storage media on the fluoride release and surface microhardness of four polyacid-modified composite resins (“compomers”). Dent Mater 1999; 15: 196-201.
• 9.Honório HM, Rios D, Francisconi LF, Magalhães AC, Machado MA, Buzalaf MA. Effect of prolonged erosive pH cycling on different restorative materials. J Oral Rehabil. 2008;35:947–953.
• 10. Munack J, Haubert H, Dogan S, Geurtsen W. Effects of various storage media on surface hardness and structure of four polyacidmodified composite resins ("compomers") Clin Oral Investig. 2001;5:254–259.
• 11. Yanikoglu N, Duymus ZY, Yilmaz B. Effects of different solutions on the surface hardness of composite resin materials. Dent Mater J. 2009;28:344–351. 12.Çoğulu D, Ersin N, Topaloğlu AA. Asitli içeceklerin üç farklı restoratif materyalin yüzey sertliği üzerine etkisinin incelenmesi. Dicle Diş Hek Derg 2008; 9: 7-12.
• 13Kaur, H., & Nandlal, B. Effect of dietary solvents on the strength of nanocomposite, compomer, glass ionomer cement: An in-vitro study. Journal of conservative dentistry: JCD. 2013;16(6), 527.
• 14. 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 Reh 2004; 31: 1046-1052.
• 15.Yanikoğlu N, Duymuş ZY, Yilmaz B. Effects of different solutions on the surface hardness of composite resin materials. Dent Mater J 2009; 28: 344-351. 16.Maupomé G, Díez-de-Bonilla J, Torres-Villaseñor G, AndradeDelgado LC, Castaño VM. In vitro quantitative assessment of enamel microhardness after exposure to eroding immersion in a cola drink. Caries Res.1998; 32: 148-153.
• 17.Kavaklı, K., Yılmaz, D., Çetinkaya, B., Balkan, C., Sözmen, E. Y., & Sağın, F. G. Safety profiles of Fe2+ and Fe3+ oral preparations in the treatment of iron deficiency anemia in children. Pediatric hematology and oncology 2004 21(5), 403-410.