English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of chemical degradation media associated with brushing on surface roughness (Ra) and Knoop microhardness (KHN) ana lyses of different composites. Materials and methods: Eighty specimens were prepared for each composite: GrandioSO (Voco), Amaris (Voco), Filtek Supreme (3M ESPE), Filtek LS (3M ESPE). The specimens were divided into four groups according to the immersion in che­mical­degradation­media­for­7­days:­artificial­saliva­(control),­ heptane, 0.02 M citric acid, 70% ethanol. The surface of speci­ mens was submitted to 10950 brushing cycles (200 gm load) in an automatic toothbrushing machine with abrasive slurry. Surface roughness and microhardness measurements were obtained at baseline, after immersion in chemical degradation media and after brushing. Data were submitted to three­way repeated measures ANOVA and Tukey’s test (p < 0.05). Results: The KHN means for composites were: Grandio (153.5 ± 35.9)a, Filtek Supreme (87.0 ± 24.9)b, Amaris (64.5 ± 24.5)c, LS (69.0 ± 15.3)c;­for­storage­media:­artificial­saliva­(97.3­±­46.7)a, ethanol (93.3 ± 49.9)a, citric acid (95.8 ± 42.1)a, heptane (87.6 ± 36.7)b; and after treatments: after chemical degradation (104.8 ± 49.7)a, baseline (93.8 ± 42.5)b, after brushing (81.9 ± 36.5)c. The Ra results for composites were: LS (0.15 ± 0.25)a, GrandioSO (0.19 ± 0.24)ab, Filtek Supreme (0.20 ± 0.22)ab, Amaris (0.23 ± 0.37)b;­for­storage­media:­artificial­saliva­(0.18­±­0.31)a, heptane (0.18 ± 0.25)a, ethanol (0.20 ± 0.26)a, citric acid (0.21 ± 0.28)a, and after treatments: brushing (0.11 ± 0.14)a, after chemical degrada­ tion (0.23 ± 0.32)b, baseline (0.24 ± 0.32)b. Conclusion: Brushing after chemical degradation reduced surface roughness values. In general, chemical degra dation did not affect composites roughness, but microhardness was signi­ficantly­reduced.­Heptane­produced­the­biggest­reduction­ in composites microhardness. Clinical relevance: The food­simulating solutions and brushing simulating alter the composites properties, and these altera­ tions are material­dependent.

Influence of Chemical Degradation and Toothbrushing on Surface of Composites