Comparison of Aging-Dependent Microhardness of Anterior Region Composite Resins

Abstract

Aim: The aim is to evaluate in vitro the surface hardness values of universal restorative materials used in the anterior region when exposed to acid and artificial saliva using two different polishing techniques. Materials and Methods: In our study, 2 different polishing methods (Shofu One Gloss and EVE Diacomp Plus) were applied to a total of 240 samples prepared using 5 different restorative materials (Essentia Universal Shade-GC, Omnichroma-Tokuyama, Charisma Diamond One-Kulzer, ZenChroma-President Dental and Essentia HiFlo-GC) (n=8). The polished samples were exposed to 3 different aging methods (artificial saliva, orange juice and orange juice-artificial saliva) for 24 hours. Vicker’s hardness measurements (Matsuzawa® MHT2, High Quality Microhardness Tester, Matsuzawa SEIKI Co; Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) were performed before and after aging. The upper surfaces of the samples were analyzed by SEM (JEOL JSM 7001F, Japan) before and after aging. Results: The highest initial hardness value of the composites was observed in Charisma Diamond One (89.578), while the lowest was observed in Essentia HiFlo (54.830) (p<0.05). The highest decrease in the hardness value after aging was observed in Zenchroma after EVE Diacomp Plus polishing and then kept in orange juice (-2.82±1.51), while the lowest decrease was observed in Omnichroma after EVE Diacomp Plus polishing and then in artificial saliva+orange juice cycle (-0.64±0.84) (p>0.05). Conclusion: It was recorded that there were changes in the surface hardness values of the samples due to the effect of acidic drinks and artificial saliva. The least decrease was observed after the artificial saliva + orange juice cycle. Key Words: Composite resin, Vickers, aging, polishing systems, microhardness.

Keywords

• Key Words: Composite resin
• Vickers
• aging
• polishing systems
• microhardness.

Anterior Bölge Kompozit Rezinlerin Yaşlandırmaya Bağlı Mikrosertliklerinin Karşılaştırılması

Abstract

Amaç: Çalışmanın amacı; anterior bölgede kullanılan farklı yapıdaki üniversal restoratif materyallerin, iki farklı polisaj tekniği sonrasında, aside ve yapay tükürüğe maruz kaldığında, yüzey sertlik değerlerinin in vitro olarak değerlendirilmesidir. Gereç ve Yöntem: Çalışmamızda 5 farklı restoratif materyal (Essentia Üniversal Shade-GC, Omnichroma-Tokuyama, Charisma Diamond One-Kulzer, ZenChroma-President Dental ve Essentia HiFlo-GC) kullanılarak hazırlanan toplamda 240 adet örneğe 2 farklı polisaj yöntemi (Shofu One Gloss ve EVE Diacomp Plus) uygulandı (n=8). Örnekler 24 saat süreyle 3 farklı yaşlandırma yöntemine (yapay tükürük, portakal suyu ve portakal suyu-yapay tükürük) maruz bırakıldı. Yaşlandırma öncesi ve sonrasında Vicker’s sertliği ölçümleri (Matsuzawa® MHT2, High Quality Microhardness Tester, Matsuzawa SEIKI Co; Ltd, Tokyo, Japonya) yapıldı. Örneklerin üst yüzeyleri yaşlandırma öncesinde ve sonrasında SEM (JEOL JSM 7001F, Japonya) ile analiz edildi. Bulgular: Kompozitlerin en yüksek başlangıç sertlik değeri Charisma Diamond One (89,578)’da izlenirken, en düşük Essentia HiFlo (54,830)’da görülmüştür (p<0,05). Yaşlandırma sonrası sertlik değerinde en fazla düşüş; Zenchroma’ya EVE Diacomp Plus polisaj uygulaması sonrası portakal suyunda bekletilmesi ile gözlenirken (-2,82±1,51), en az düşüş ise; Omnichroma’ya EVE Diacomp Plus polisaj uygulaması sonrası yapay tükürük+portakal suyu döngüsünde gözlenmiştir (-0,64±0,84) (p>0,05). Sonuçlar: Örneklerin yüzey sertliği değerlerinde, asidik içeceklerin ve yapay tükürüğün etkisiyle değişimler olduğu kaydedilmiştir. En az düşüş yapay tükürük+portakal suyu döngüsü sonrasında gözlenmiştir. Anahtar Kelimeler: Kompozit rezin, Vickers, yaşlandırma, polisaj yöntemleri, mikrosertlik.

Keywords

• Kompozit rezin
• Vickers
• yaşlandırma
• polisaj yöntemleri
• mikrosertlik.

References

1. 1. Luo MR, Cui G, Rigg B. The development of the CIE 2000 colour‐difference formula: CIEDE2000. Color Research & Application: Endorsed by Inter‐Society Color Council, The Colour Group (Great Britain), Canadian Society for Color, Color Science Association of Japan, Dutch Society for the Study of Color, The Swedish Colour Centre Foundation, Colour Society of Australia, Centre Français de la Couleur. 2001;26(5):340-50.
2. 2. Magne P, So W-S. Optical integration of incisoproximal restorations using the natural layering concept. Quintessence international. 2008;39(8).
3. 3. ElSayad II. Color and translucency of finished and unfinished esthetic restorative materials after staining and bleaching. The Saudi Dental Journal. 2018;30(3):219-25.
4. 4. Roeder LB, Powers JM. Surface roughness of resin composite prepared by single-use and multi-use diamonds. American journal of dentistry. 2004;17(2):109-12.
5. 5. Turkun L, Turkun M. The effect of one-step polishing system on the surface roughness of three esthetic resin composite materials. Operative Dentistry-University of Washington-. 2004;29(2):203-11.
6. 6. Genç G, Toz T. Rezin kompozitlerin renk stabilitesi ile ilgili bir derleme: Kompozit renklenmelerinin etyolojisi, sınıflandırılması ve tedavisi. Ege Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi. 2017;38(2):68-79.
7. 7. Aykent F, Yondem I, Ozyesil AG, Gunal SK, Avunduk MC, Ozkan S. Effect of different finishing techniques for restorative materials on surface roughness and bacterial adhesion. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 2010;103(4):221-7.
8. 8. Lee Y-K, Yu B, Lim H-N, Lim JI. Difference in the color stability of direct and indirect resin composites. Journal of Applied Oral Science. 2011; 19:154-60.

9. 9. Jefferies SR. Abrasive finishing and polishing in restorative dentistry: a state-of-the-art review. Dental Clinics of North America. 2007;51(2):379-97.
10. 10. Bijelic‐Donova J, Garoushi S, Lassila LV, Vallittu PK. Oxygen inhibition layer of composite resins: effects of layer thickness and surface layer treatment on the interlayer bond strength. European journal of oral sciences. 2015;123(1):53-60.
11. 11. Rios D, Honório HM, Francisconi LF, Magalhães AC, Machado MAdAM, Buzalaf MAR. In situ effect of an erosive challenge on different restorative materials and on enamel adjacent to these materials. Journal of dentistry. 2008;36(2):152-7.
12. 12. Aliping‐McKenzie M, Linden R, Nicholson J. The effect of Coca‐Cola and fruit juices on the surface hardness of glass–ionomers and ‘compomers’. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation. 2004;31(11):1046-52.
13. 13. Çoğulu D, Ersin N, Topaloğlu A. Asitli içeceklerin üç farklı restoratif materyalin yüzey sertliği üzerine etkisinin incelenmesi. Dicle Diş Hek Derg. 2008; 9:7-12.
14. 14. Grippo JO, Simring M, Schreiner S. Attrition, abrasion, corrosion and abfraction revisited: a new perspective on tooth surface lesions. The Journal of the American Dental Association. 2004;135(8):1109-18.
15. 15. Müezzinoğlu H, Soyman MA. Kompozit Rezinlere Renklendirici Çözeltiler ve Ev Tipi Beyazlatma Materyali Uygulanması Sonrasında Yüzey Pürüzlülüğü ve Renk Değişimlerinin İncelenmesi. 7tepe Klinik Dergisi. 2023;19(3):184-90.
16. 16. Amaral FL, Colucci V, Palma‐Dibb RG, Corona SA. Assessment of in vitro methods used to promote adhesive interface degradation: a critical review. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry. 2007;19(6):340-53.
17. 17. Mitra SB, Wu D, Holmes BN. An application of nanotechnology in advanced dental materials. The Journal of the American Dental Association. 2003;134(10):1382-90.
18. 18. Moszner N, Klapdohr S. Nanotechnology for dental composites. International Journal of Nanotechnology. 2004;1(1-2):130-56.
19. 19. Ergücü Z, Türkün L. Nanokompozitlerin mikrosızıntısında adezivlerin önemi. Ege Üni DiĢ Hek Fak Derg. 2005; 26:59-64.
20. 20. Swift Jr EJ. Nanocomposites. Journal of Esthetic & Restorative Dentistry. 2005;17(1).3-4
21. 21. Lutz F, Phillips RW. A classification and evaluation of composite resin systems. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 1983;50(4):480-8.
22. 22. Baseren M. Surface roughness of nanofill and nanohybrid composite resin and ormocer-based tooth-colored restorative materials after several finishing and polishing procedures. Journal of Biomaterials Applications. 2004;19(2):121-34.
23. 23. Fleming G, Zala DM. An assessment of encapsulated versus hand-mixed glass ionomer restoratives. Operative Dentistry. 2003;28(2):168-77.
24. 24. García-Godoy F, García-Godoy A. Effect of bleaching gels on the surface roughness, hardness, and micromorphology of composites. General Dentistry. 2002;50(3):247-50.
25. 25. Wan AC, Yap AU, Hastings GW. Acid–base complex reactions in resin‐modified and conventional glass ionomer cements. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research: An Official Journal of the Society for Biomaterials, The Japanese Society for Biomaterials, and The Australian Society for Biomaterials and the Korean Society for Biomaterials. 1999;48(5):700-4.
26. 26. El-Badrawy W, McComb D, Wood R. Effect of home-use fluoride gels on glass ionomer and composite restorations. Dental Materials. 1993;9(1):63-7.
27. 27. von Fraunhofer JA, Rogers MM. Dissolution of dental enamel in soft drinks. General dentistry. 2004;52(4):308-12.
28. 28. Bulut A, Dağdelen Ahısha C, Bala O, Akgül S. Üniversal rezin kompozitlerin mikrosertliği, yüzey pürüzlülüğü ve renk değişimi üzerine farklı ağız gargaralarının etkileri. Acta Odontologica Turcica. 2025; 42(1):29 - 35.
29. 29. Rees JS, Loyn T, Rowe W, Kunst Q, McAndrew R. The ability of fruit teas to remove the smear layer: an in vitro study of tubule patency. Journal of dentistry. 2006;34(1):67-76.
30. 30. Mayworm CD, Camargo Jr SS, Bastian FL. Influence of artificial saliva on abrasive wear and microhardness of dental composites filled with nanoparticles. Journal of dentistry. 2008;36(9):703-10.
31. 31. Hannig C, Berndt D, Hoth-Hannig W, Hannig M. The effect of acidic beverages on the ultrastructure of the acquired pellicle—an in situ study. Archives of oral biology. 2009;54(6):518-26.
32. 32. Han L, Okamoto A, Fukushima M, Okiji T. Evaluation of flowable resin composite surfaces eroded by acidic and alcoholic drinks. Dental materials journal. 2008;27(3):455-65.
33. 33. Lussi A, Jaeggi T, Zero D. The role of diet in the aetiology of dental erosion. Caries research. 2004;38(Suppl. 1):34-44.
34. 34. Magalhães AC, Moraes S, Rios D, Buzalaf MAR. Effect of ion supplementation of a commercial soft drink on tooth enamel erosion. Food Additives and Contaminants. 2009;26(2):152-6.
35. 35. Dündar, A. (2012). Mine yüzeyinin farklı rezinlerle kaplanması ve sitrik asidin flor, nanohidroksiapatit ve kazein ile modifiye edilmesi işlemlerinin dental erozyonu önlemedeki etkinliklerinin incelenmesi. (Doktora Tezi), Selçuk Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü Diş Hastalıkları ve Tedavisi Anabilim Dalı, Konya.
36. 36. Ozkanoglu S, Akin E. Evaluation of the effect of various beverages on the color stability and microhardness of restorative materials. Nigerian journal of clinical practice. 2020;23(3):322-8.
37. 37. Yesilyurt C, Yoldas O, Altintas SH, Kusgoz A. Effects of food-simulating liquids on the mechanical properties of a silorane-based dental composite. Dental materials journal. 2009;28(3):362-7.
38. 38. Shahdad SA, McCabe JF, Bull S, Rusby S, Wassell RW. Hardness measured with traditional Vickers and Martens hardness methods. Dental Materials. 2007;23(9):1079-85.
39. 39. Kim K-H, Ong JL, Okuno O. The effect of filler loading and morphology on the mechanical properties of contemporary composites. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 2002;87(6):642-9.
40. 40. Mobarak E, Elsayad I, Ibrahim M, El-Badrawy W. Effect of LED light-curing on the relative hardness of tooth-colored restorative materials. Operative Dentistry. 2009;34(1):65-71.
41. 41. Uhl A, Michaelis C, Mills RW, Jandt KD. The influence of storage and indenter load on the Knoop hardness of dental composites polymerized with LED and halogen technologies. Dental Materials. 2004;20(1):21-8.
42. 42. Yap AUJ, Pandya M, Toh WS. Depth of cure of contemporary bulk-fill resin-based composites. Dental materials journal. 2016;35(3):503-10.
43. 43. Tekçe N, Pala K, Özel E, Tuncer S, Demirci M. Üç Farklı Kompozit Materyalinin Yüzey Sertliği Üzerinde Polimerizasyon Süresinin Etkisi. Turkiye Klinikleri Journal of Dental Sciences. 2015;21(2).
44. 44. Marghalani HY. Post-irradiation Vickers microhardness development of novel resin composites. Materials Research. 2010; 13:81-7.
45. 45. Erdemir U, Sancakli HS, Yildiz E. The effect of one-step and multi-step polishing systems on the surface roughness and microhardness of novel resin composites. European journal of dentistry. 2012;6(02):198-205.
46. 46. Canto, F.M.T., Alexandria, A.K., Magno, M.B., Silva, E.M.D. ve Maia, L.C. Topography and microhardness changes of nanofilled resin composite restorations submitted to different finishing and polishing systems and erosive challenge. Pesquisa Brasileira em Odontopediatria e Clínica Integrada, 2020;20: e4812.
47. 47. Chowdhury, D., Mukherjee, S., Maity, I. ve Mazumdar, P. Surface roughness and microhardness evaluation of composite resin restorations subjected to three different polishing systems immediately and after 24 h: An in vitro study. Journal of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, 2023;26 (6): 639-45.