EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT MOUTHRINSES ON THE COLOR AND SURFACE ROUGHNESS OF DIFFERENT SUBSTRATES

Sinem Süslü Arslan; Uzay Koç Vural; Sevil Gürgan; Filiz Yalçın Çakır

EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT MOUTHRINSES ON THE COLOR AND SURFACE ROUGHNESS OF DIFFERENT SUBSTRATES

Abstract

Background and Aim: To investigate how different mouthrinses affect the color and surface roughness of various substrates. Materials and Methods: Sixty enamel specimens from upper permanent central incisors and 240 disc-shaped specimens from a nanoceramic (Ceram.x SphereTEC™one (CSTo)), a nanohybrid (Tetric EvoCeram bulk-fill (TECBF)), a nanofilled (Filtek Ultimate (FU)) resin-based composites (RBCs), and a glass hybrid (GH) (Equia Forte Fil HT (EFF)) were fabricated (n=60 per group). Each group was then split across 5 subgroups: 1-distiled water (DW), 2-Listerine Advanced White (LAW), 3-Listerine Total Care (LTC), 4-Meridol (M), and 5-Oral-B Pro-Expert (OBPE). Initial color and surface roughness analyses were achieved after 24 hours (T0). They were then subjected to different mouthrinses, and color and surface roughness measurements were repeated (T1). Changes in color (ΔE00), whitening index (WID), and surface roughness (Ra) were calculated. The data were analyzed statistically (p<0.05). Results: The interaction between groups and mouthrinses was found significant (F=3.432; p<0.001). There were significant differences among the groups in terms of color change (F=70,822; p<0.001). Two-way ANOVA revealed significant differences among CSTo, FU, and Enamel (E) groups (p=0.001, p<0.001, p=0.018, respectively). Regarding WID values, significant differences were detected between T0 and T1 (F=9.517; p=0.002) and among the groups (F=2289.397; p<0.001). EFF exhibited the lowest WID values, followed by E, while TECBF displayed the highest. In terms of Ra values, EFF groups (p≤0,001) showed a significant increase (p≤0,001). Conclusion: Mouthrinses should be recommended with caution as they can affect the color and surface roughness of different substrates, including enamel, RBCs, and GH restoratives, deleteriously.

Keywords

References

1. Mandel ID. Chemotherapeutic agents for controlling plaque and gingivitis. J Clin Periodontol 1988; 15: 488-498.
2. Brook I. Microbiology and management of periodontal infections. Gen Dent 2003; 51: 424-428.
3. Khosravi M, Esmaeili B, Nikzad F, Khafri S. Color Stability of Nanofilled and Microhybrid Resin-Based Composites Following Exposure to Chlorhexidine Mouthrinses: An In Vitro Study. J Dent (Tehran) 2016; 13: 116-125.
4. Walker MP, Ries D, Kula K, Ellis M, Fricke B. Mechanical properties and surface characterization of beta titanium and stainless steel orthodontic wire following topical fluoride treatment. Angle Orthod 2007; 77: 342-348.
5. Pelino JEP, Passero A, Martin AA, Charles CA. In vitro effects of alcohol-containing mouthwashes on human enamel and restorative materials. Braz Oral Res 2018; 32: 25.
6. Moreira AD, Mattos CT, de Araujo MV, Ruellas AC, Sant’anna EF. Chromatic analysis of teeth exposed to different mouthrinses. J Dent 2013; 41: 24-27.
7. Fernandes FPT TC, França FMG, Basting RT, do Amaral FLB Whitening mouthwash containing hydrogen peroxide decreases enamel microhardness in vitro. Braz J Oral Sci 2017; 16: 1-9.
8. Lima FG, Rotta TA, Penso S, Meireles SS, Demarco FF. In vitro evaluation of the whitening effect of mouth rinses containing hydrogen peroxide. Braz Oral Res 2012; 26: 269-274.

9. Jaime IM, Franca FM, Basting RT, Turssi CP, Amaral FL. Efficacy of hydrogen-peroxide-based mouthwash in altering enamel color. Am J Dent 2014; 27: 47-50.
10. Leonard RH, Teixeira EC, Garland GE, Ritter AV. Effect on enamel microhardness of two consumer-available bleaching solutions when compared with a dentist-prescribed, home-applied bleaching solution and a control. J Esthet Restor Dent 2005; 17: 343-350.
11. Al-Samadani KH. The Effect of Preventive Agents (Mouthwashes/Gels) on the Color Stability of Dental Resin-Based Composite Materials. Dent J (Basel) 2017; 5:18.
12. Trauth KG, Godoi AP, Colucci V, Corona SA, Catirse AB. The influence of mouthrinses and simulated toothbrushing on the surface roughness of a nanofilled composite resin. Braz Oral Res 2012; 26: 209-214.
13. Fugolin APP, Pfeifer CS. New Resins for Dental Composites. J Dent Res 2017; 96: 1085-1091.
14. Jyothi K, Crasta S, Venugopal P. Effect of five commercial mouth rinses on the microhardness of a nanofilled resin composite restorative material: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2012; 15: 214-217.
15. Gurgan S, Kutuk ZB, Yalcin Cakir F, Ergin E. A randomized controlled 10 years follow up of a glass ionomer restorative material in class I and class II cavities. J Dent 2020; 94: 103175.
16. Armas-Vega A, Casanova-Obando P, Taboada-Alvear MF, Aldas-Ramirez JE, Montero-Oleas N, Viteri-Garcia A. Effect of mouthwashes on the integrity of composite resin and resin modified glass ionomer: In vitro study. J Clin Exp Dent 2019; 11: 179-184.
17. Sadaghiani L, Wilson MA, Wilson NH. Effect of selected mouthwashes on the surface roughness of resin modified glassionomer restorative materials. Dent Mater 2007; 23: 325-334.
18. Gurgan S, Onen A, Koprulu H. In vitro effects of alcoholcontaining and alcohol-free mouthrinses on microhardness of some restorative materials. J Oral Rehabil 1997; 24: 244-246.
19. Kury M, Perches C, da Silva DP, Andre CB, Tabchoury CPM, Giannini M et al. Color change, diffusion of hydrogen peroxide, and enamel morphology after in-office bleaching with violet light or nonthermal atmospheric plasma: An in vitro study. J Esthet Restor Dent 2020; 32: 102-112.
20. Paravina RD, Ghinea R, Herrera LJ, Bona AD, Igiel C, Linninger M et al. Color difference thresholds in dentistry. J Esthet Restor Dent 2015; 27: 1-9.
21. Perez MM, Herrera LJ, Carrillo F, Pecho OE, Dudea D, Gasparik C et al. Whiteness difference thresholds in dentistry. Dent Mater 2019; 35: 292-297.
22. Tabatabaian F, Beyabanaki E, Alirezaei P, Epakchi S. Visual and digital tooth shade selection methods, related effective factors and conditions, and their accuracy and precision: A literature review. J Esthet Restor Dent 2021; 33: 1084-1104.
23. Derdilopoulou FV, Zantner C, Neumann K, Kielbassa AM. Evaluation of visual and spectrophotometric shade analyses: a clinical comparison of 3758 teeth. Int J Prosthodont 2007; 20: 414-416.
24. Chittem J, Sajjan GS, Varma Kanumuri M. Spectrophotometric Evaluation of Colour Stability of Nano Hybrid Composite Resin in Commonly Used Food Colourants in Asian Countries. J Clin Diagn Res 2017; 11: 61-65.
25. Favaro JC, Ribeiro E, Guiraldo RD, Lopes MB, Aranha AMF, Berger SB. Effect of mouth rinses on tooth enamel surface. J Oral Sci 2020; 62: 103-106.
26. Baig AR, Shori DD, Shenoi PR, Ali SN, Shetti S, Godhane A. Mouthrinses affect color stability of composite. J Conserv Dent 2016; 19: 355-359.
27. Gurdal P, Akdeniz BG, Hakan Sen B. The effects of mouthrinses on microhardness and colour stability of aesthetic restorative materials. J Oral Rehabil 2002; 29: 895-8901.
28. Lepri CP, Ribeiro MV, Dibb A, Palma-Dibb RG. Influence of mounthrinse solutions on the color stability and microhardness of a composite resin. Int J Esthet Dent 2014; 9: 238-246.
29. Celik C, Yuzugullu B, Erkut S, Yamanel K. Effects of mouth rinses on color stability of resin composites. Eur J Dent 2008; 2: 247-253.
30. Shree Roja RJ, Sriman N, Prabhakar V, Minu K, Subha A, Ambalavanan P. Comparative evaluation of color stability of three composite resins in mouthrinse: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2019; 22: 175-180.
31. Lehtinen J, Laurila T, Lassila LV, Vallittu PK, Raty J, Hernberg R. Optical characterization of bisphenol-A-glycidyldimethacrylatetriethyleneglycoldimethacrylate (BisGMA/TEGDMA) monomers and copolymer. Dent Mater 2008; 24: 1324-3228.
32. Bottenberg P, Jacquet W, Alaerts M, Keulemans F. A prospective randomized clinical trial of one bis-GMA-based and two ormocerbased composite restorative systems in class II cavities: Five-year results. J Dent 2009; 37: 198-203.
33. Arikawa H, Kanie T, Fujii K, Takahashi H, Ban S. Effect of filler properties in composite resins on light transmittance characteristics and color. Dent Mater J 2007; 26: 38-44.
34. Jung M, Sehr K, Klimek J. Surface texture of four nanofilled and one hybrid composite after finishing. Oper Dent 2007; 32: 45-52.
35. Luo W, Westland S, Ellwood R, Pretty I, Cheung V. Development of a whiteness index for dentistry. J Dent 2009; 37: 21-26.
36. Mada DC GC, Irimie AI, Mada MD, Dudea D, Campian RS. Evaluation of chromatic changes of a nanocomposite resin using the new whitness index. Clujul Med 2018; 91: 222-228.
37. E G. Whiteness measurement. J Col Appear 1972; 1: 33-41.
38. Demarco FF, Meireles SS, Masotti AS. Over-the-counter whitening agents: a concise review. Braz Oral Res 2009; 23: 64-70.
39. Moraes RR, Ribeiro Ddos S, Klumb MM, Brandt WC, Correr- Sobrinho L, Bueno M. In vitro toothbrushing abrasion of dental resin composites: packable, microhybrid, nanohybrid and microfilled materials. Braz Oral Res 2008; 22: 112-118.
40. Voltarelli FR, Santos-Daroz CB, Alves MC, Cavalcanti AN, Marchi GM. Effect of chemical degradation followed by toothbrushing on the surface roughness of restorative composites. J Appl Oral Sci 2010; 18: 585-590.
41. Schneider LF, Moraes RR, Cavalcante LM, Sinhoreti MA, Correr- Sobrinho L, Consani S. Cross-link density evaluation through softening tests: effect of ethanol concentration. Dent Mater 2008; 24: 199-203.
42. Kao EC. Influence of food-simulating solvents on resin composites and glass-ionomer restorative cement. Dent Mater 1989; 5: 201-208.
43. Penugonda B, Settembrini L, Scherer W, Hittelman E, Strassler H. Alcohol-containing mouthwashes: effect on composite hardness. J Clin Dent 1994; 5: 60-62.
44. McKinney JE, Wu W. Chemical softening and wear of dental composites. J Dent Res 1985; 64: 1326-1331.
45. da Silva EM, de Sa Rodrigues CU, Dias DA, da Silva S, Amaral CM, Guimaraes JG. Effect of toothbrushing-mouthrinse-cycling on surface roughness and topography of nanofilled, microfilled, and microhybrid resin composites. Oper Dent 2014; 39: 521-529.
46. Festuccia MS, Garcia Lda F, Cruvinel DR, Pires-De-Souza Fde C. Color stability, surface roughness and microhardness of composites submitted to mouthrinsing action. J Appl Oral Sci 2012; 20: 200- 205.
47. Almeida GS, Poskus LT, Guimaraes JG, da Silva EM. The effect of mouthrinses on salivary sorption, solubility and surface degradation of a nanofilled and a hybrid resin composite. Oper Dent 2010; 35: 105-111.
48. McCullough MJ, Farah CS. The role of alcohol in oral carcinogenesis with particular reference to alcohol-containing mouthwashes. Aust Dent J 2008; 53: 302-305.
49. Reis AF, Giannini M, Lovadino JR, dos Santos Dias CT. The effect of six polishing systems on the surface roughness of two packable resin-based composites. Am J Dent 2002; 15: 193-197.
50. Gladys S, Van Meerbeek B, Braem M, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Comparative physico-mechanical characterization of new hybrid restorative materials with conventional glass-ionomer and resin composite restorative materials. J Dent Res 1997; 76: 883-894.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Restorative Dentistry

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Sinem Süslü Arslan ^*
0000-0003-0438-9474
Türkiye

Uzay Koç Vural
0000-0002-8764-2174
Türkiye

Sevil Gürgan
0000-0002-0408-8949
Türkiye

Filiz Yalçın Çakır
0000-0002-7972-5391
Türkiye

Publication Date

August 28, 2024

Submission Date

March 21, 2024

Acceptance Date

June 27, 2024

Published in Issue

Year 2024 Volume: 48 Number: 2

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA73PL75NH

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Süslü Arslan, S., Koç Vural, U., Gürgan, S., & Yalçın Çakır, F. (2024). EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT MOUTHRINSES ON THE COLOR AND SURFACE ROUGHNESS OF DIFFERENT SUBSTRATES. Clinical Dentistry and Research, 48(2), 56-66. https://izlik.org/JA73PL75NH

AMA

1.Süslü Arslan S, Koç Vural U, Gürgan S, Yalçın Çakır F. EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT MOUTHRINSES ON THE COLOR AND SURFACE ROUGHNESS OF DIFFERENT SUBSTRATES. Clin Dent Res. 2024;48(2):56-66. https://izlik.org/JA73PL75NH

Chicago

Süslü Arslan, Sinem, Uzay Koç Vural, Sevil Gürgan, and Filiz Yalçın Çakır. 2024. “EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT MOUTHRINSES ON THE COLOR AND SURFACE ROUGHNESS OF DIFFERENT SUBSTRATES”. Clinical Dentistry and Research 48 (2): 56-66. https://izlik.org/JA73PL75NH.

EndNote

Süslü Arslan S, Koç Vural U, Gürgan S, Yalçın Çakır F (August 1, 2024) EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT MOUTHRINSES ON THE COLOR AND SURFACE ROUGHNESS OF DIFFERENT SUBSTRATES. Clinical Dentistry and Research 48 2 56–66.

IEEE

[1]S. Süslü Arslan, U. Koç Vural, S. Gürgan, and F. Yalçın Çakır, “EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT MOUTHRINSES ON THE COLOR AND SURFACE ROUGHNESS OF DIFFERENT SUBSTRATES”, Clin Dent Res, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 56–66, Aug. 2024, [Online]. Available: https://izlik.org/JA73PL75NH

ISNAD

Süslü Arslan, Sinem - Koç Vural, Uzay - Gürgan, Sevil - Yalçın Çakır, Filiz. “EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT MOUTHRINSES ON THE COLOR AND SURFACE ROUGHNESS OF DIFFERENT SUBSTRATES”. Clinical Dentistry and Research 48/2 (August 1, 2024): 56-66. https://izlik.org/JA73PL75NH.

JAMA

1.Süslü Arslan S, Koç Vural U, Gürgan S, Yalçın Çakır F. EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT MOUTHRINSES ON THE COLOR AND SURFACE ROUGHNESS OF DIFFERENT SUBSTRATES. Clin Dent Res. 2024;48:56–66.

MLA

Süslü Arslan, Sinem, et al. “EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT MOUTHRINSES ON THE COLOR AND SURFACE ROUGHNESS OF DIFFERENT SUBSTRATES”. Clinical Dentistry and Research, vol. 48, no. 2, Aug. 2024, pp. 56-66, https://izlik.org/JA73PL75NH.

Vancouver

1.Sinem Süslü Arslan, Uzay Koç Vural, Sevil Gürgan, Filiz Yalçın Çakır. EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT MOUTHRINSES ON THE COLOR AND SURFACE ROUGHNESS OF DIFFERENT SUBSTRATES. Clin Dent Res [Internet]. 2024 Aug. 1;48(2):56-6. Available from: https://izlik.org/JA73PL75NH