Premium
Effect of Whitening Dentifrices on the Superficial Roughness of Esthetic Restorative Materials
Author(s) -
Amaral Cristiane Mariote,
Rodrigues Jose Augusto,
Guilherme Erhardt Maria Carolina,
Barata Araujo Marcelo Werneck,
Marchi Giselle Maria,
Heymann Harald O.,
Freire Pimenta Luiz Andre
Publication year - 2006
Publication title -
journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.919
H-Index - 60
eISSN - 1708-8240
pISSN - 1496-4155
DOI - 10.2310/6130.2006.00017_1.x
Subject(s) - dentifrice , materials science , profilometer , surface roughness , dentistry , surface finish , composite material , medicine , chemistry , fluoride , inorganic chemistry
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the surface roughness (Ra) of different esthetic restorative materials following simulated toothbrushing using different whitening dentifrices. Materials and Methods: Cylinders of Esthet‐X (Dentsply Caulk, Milford, DE, USA), Durafil VS (Heraeus Kulzer, Wehrheim, Germany), and Vitremer (3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) were made using molds (4 mm in diameter for 2 mm in height). The superficial roughness was evaluated using a profilometer (Ra) with a cutoff length of 0.25 mm and a speed of 0.1 mm/s. The specimens ( N = 13) were submitted to 7,500 brushing cycles using five different toothpastes: (1) Crest Regular (control; Procter & Gamble): silica abrasive (C); (2) Crest Extra Whitening (Procter & Gamble, Cincinnati, OH, USA): bicarbonate + calcium pyrophosphate (CE); (3) Dental Care A & H (Arm & Hammer, Camilla, GA, USA): bicarbonate (DC); (4) Rembrandt Plus Whitening (Oral B Laboratories, Belmont, CA, USA): carbamide peroxide + alumina/silica (RP); and (5) experimental: hydrogen peroxide + calcium carbonate (EX). Results: The data were analyzed by analysis of variance and Tukey's test (a = .05) for each restorative material, and the results [difference between final and initial roughness: Ra(F) – Ra(I) in µm] were as follows: Esthet‐X: EX = 0.15 + 0.07 a ; RP = 0.29 + 0.16 a ; CE = 0.96 + 0.33 b ; C = 1.03 + 0.29 b ; DC = 1.48 + 0.37 b ; Durafil VS: RP = 0.09 + 0.07 a ; EX = 0.55 + 0.23 abc ; C = 0.96 + 0.26 bc ; CE = 1.03 + 0.33 cd ; DC = 1.09 + 0.37 d ; and Vitremer: EX = 0.10 + 0.08 a ; RP = 0.26 + 0.19 a ; CE = 0.94 + 0.27 b ; DC = 1.13 + 0.46 bc ; C = 1.50 + 0.32 c (different letters mean differences among groups). Conclusion: It was verified that the dentifrices containing carbamide or hydrogen peroxide along with alumina + silica and calcium carbonate, respectively (groups 4 and 5), produced minor changes in Ra when compared with the control group and with those dentifrices containing bicarbonate (groups 2 and 3). CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE The results of this study indicate that whitening dentifrices evaluated containing silica or calcium carbonate were less abrasive when used on the resin‐based esthetic restorative materials than those that contain sodium bicarbonate.