Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current issue | Archives | Submit article | Instructions| Reviewers

Login 
  Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size Users Online: 2165    
     


 
Table of Contents   
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 12  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 353-359
Microhardness evaluation of microhybrid versus nanofilled resin composite after exposure to acidic drinks


1 Restorative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia and Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
2 Restorative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia; Conservative Dentistry Department, October University for Modern Sciences and Arts University, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo, Egypt

Date of Submission04-Mar-2022
Date of Decision20-Apr-2022
Date of Acceptance16-May-2022
Date of Web Publication29-Jun-2022

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Rasha R Basheer
Restorative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, PO Box 80209, Jeddah 21589
Egypt
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_66_22

Rights and Permissions

   Abstract 

Objective: To investigate the effect of two acidic agents on microhardness of nanofilled and microhybrid resin composite materials. Materials and Methods: 70 resin composite discs (10 mm diameter and 2 mm thick) were prepared from 2 resin composites (35 from each type), nanofilled (Z350XT) and microhybrid (Z250), 3M/ESPE. Ten discs (5 from each group) were used as control (tested at 1 h before immersion). Each group was divided into 3 subgroups (n = 10) according to the storage media: distilled water (control), box-type cola and orange juice. Each subgroup was further subdivided into 2 divisions (n = 5) according to microhardness testing at 24 h and 7days after immersions. Digital Vickers Microhardness Tester (FM-7, Future Tech, Tokyo, Japan) was used to measure surface microhardness with a Vickers diamond indenter. The surface of the specimens received a load of 200 g for 10 seconds. Three indentations not less than 1 mm from each other were placed on the surface of all specimens. Vickers hardness number (VHN) was calculated for each indentation Data were statistically analyzed using one- way ANOVA followed by Newman-keuls tests (P ≤ 0.05). Results: Orange juice showed statistically significantly the lowest VHN mean value (92.7) followed by the Cola group (95.15) then the water group (104.02) compared to the control group (117.4). Microhybrid composite groups showed statistically significant higher VHN mean value (108.1) than the nanofilled composite (100.2). The 7days groups showed statistically significant lower VHN mean value (97.3) than 24h groups (106.6). Conclusions: All storage media reduced hardness of resin composites with orange juice showing the highest reduction in hardness values. Microhybrid is more resistant to degradation than nanofilled composite. Over time, microhardness of resin composites decreased progressively.


Keywords: Acidic drinks, composite resins, microhardness


How to cite this article:
Abouelmagd DM, Basheer RR. Microhardness evaluation of microhybrid versus nanofilled resin composite after exposure to acidic drinks. J Int Soc Prevent Communit Dent 2022;12:353-9

How to cite this URL:
Abouelmagd DM, Basheer RR. Microhardness evaluation of microhybrid versus nanofilled resin composite after exposure to acidic drinks. J Int Soc Prevent Communit Dent [serial online] 2022 [cited 2022 Aug 12];12:353-9. Available from: https://www.jispcd.org/text.asp?2022/12/3/353/348784



   Introduction Top


Resin composites are becoming more popular in restorative dentistry because of their superior esthetic outcomes and good mechanical properties. It is considered to be mandatory for these restorations to have a long lifespan performance inside the oral. Hence there are different forms of destructive processes that can affect tooth surface irreversibly other than caries in the oral environment.[1] which can be referred to as abfraction, abrasion, demastication, erosion and resorption.

Acidic soft drinks can cause demineralization of the tooth surface; thus consumption of citric fruits, acidic drinks, and liquid medications are considered to be the main etiological and aggravating causes for dental erosion. The consumption of soft drinks and fruit juices increased substantially in adolescents and children.

Resin composite filling materials are susceptible to softening by organic acids and various food and liquid constituents.[2] They are exposed to many compounds (alcohols, acids, salts, alkalis, etc.), while eating and drinking, moreover it is directly affected by the frequency of consumption of these drinks..[3] This may change microhardness which is an extremely critical property of restorations, that directly affects the physiochemical properties as compressive strength and abrasion resistance. Thereby, undermining the quality of restoration and accelerates the necessity of replacement.[4],[5] Basic properties of dental restorations composite materials are directly affected by noxious factors inside the patient’s mouth. These factors are either thermal, mechanical, or chemical. Chemical factors could be classified into internal (gastric acids in frequent vomiting) and external (e.g., acidic nutrients, acids from the air or chlorinated water in the swimming pool). These acidic beverages with low pH of can lead to erosive wear on the composite materials.[6]

The mechanical properties of resin composites are greatly depending on the concentration and particle size of the filler.[7],[8] Hybrid and microhybrid resin composites have a broad range of particle sizes, macrofillers of an average size of 0.1 6.0 μm and microfillers with a particle size of 0.01-0.05 μm.[9] Thus allow high filler loading leading to higher strength.[10]

Recently nanofilled composites were developed to offer optimized physical and mechanical properties, so it can fulfill the need for a universal restorative material; thus they were indicated for posterior and anterior teeth. the distribution and packing of nanofillers in these classifications of composites can be attributed to the great improve their resistance to chemical challenges in the oral environment.[11]

Several in vitro studies were done to examine the erosive capabilities of different beverages which are considered to have a mixture of acids. Different methodical approaches as profilometric evaluation of surface loss, electron microscopy, or determination of microhardness.

Therefore the purpose of this study is to evaluate and compare the effect of two acidic beverages on microhardness of a microfilled and nanofilled resin composites and investigate the effect of aging during storages time on microhardness of both composite resins. Two null hypotheses were tested:

  1. There would be no influence for the type of acidic beverage on the microhardness of composite resin materials.


  2. There would be no difference in microhardness values for both tested composite resin materials.



   Materials and Methods Top


Two groups of 70 resin composite discs were prepared from two composite resin materials (35 from each type), nanofilled (Z350XT) and microhybrid (Z250), 3M/ESPE,St Paul, MN, USA of shade A2 [Table 1]. Ten discs (5 from each group) were used as baseline (tested at 1 h before immersion). Each group was divided into 3 subgroups (n = 10) according to the storage media: distilled water (control), box-type cola (Coca-cola company, Riyadh, KSA) and orange juice (Al Rabie Saudi Foods Co., KSA), with a daily renew of the acidic beverage [Table 2]. Each subgroup was further subdivided into 2 divisions (n = 5) according to microhardness testing at 24 h and 7days after immersion. The composite discs were stored in 20 ml of immersion media in an incubator to ensure standardization at 37°C for 1 h, 24 hr or 7 day [Figure 1].[12] The pH information of the acidic bottled beverages used in this study were not provided by the manufacturers. Hence, a digital pH meter was used to calculate the pH of each solution. The measured pH values for the orange juice and cola were 3.5 and 2.5 respectively, both of which were less than the critical pH value of 5.5. The storage media were changed and the pH measured every 24 hours.[13]
Table 1: Composite resin materials

Click here to view
Table 2: Grouping of specimens

Click here to view
Figure 1: Schematic illustration of the research method used in this study

Click here to view


Preparation of specimens

The disc shaped specimens were prepared using a Teflon mold (10 mm diameter and 2 mm thick). Mylar Strips covered the top and bottom sides of the mold, then a thin glass slide was added to obtain a flat composite resin surface. Excess material was removed by applying pressure on the glass slide. Then polymerization of the specimens was carried out after removal of the glass slide for 20 seconds, according to the manufacturer’s recommendations, employing a light emitting diode (LED) device (Blue phase; Ivoclar Vivadent, Schann, Lichtenstein) with a light intensity of 600 mW/cm2, measured with a light meter. The light curing tip was placed at zero distance over each specimen after removal of the glass slide.

Three grades of Sof-Lex discs (3M ESPE, St.Paul, MN, USA) were used with a low-speed handpiece under a wet environment to polish the top surface of the specimens. The top surface was marked to facilitate identification during the microhardness measurements.

At the end of each storage period, the top surface of the samples in contact with the erosive action of the oral cavity was subjected to microhardness testing.[14]

Microhardness measurements

Digital Vickers Microhardness Tester (FM-7, Future Tech, Tokyo, Japan) was used to measure surface microhardness of the specimens. A number of three indentations were made with a diamond indenter using a load of 200g for 10 seconds each, 1 mm apart from each other. VHN was calculated for each indentation, then the mean of three values for each specimen was recorded.[15]

Statistical analysis

Data were statistically analyzed using one- way ANOVA for comparing variables (Composite resin, immersion solutions and time) affecting mean values. One way ANOVA test was followed by Newman-keuls to detect significance between subgroups. The significance level was set at (P ≤ 0.05). Statistical analysis was performed with IBM® SPSS® Statistics Version 20 for Windows.


   Results Top


Mean VHN values and standard deviations obtained 1 hour after fabrication (baseline); after 24-hours and 7-days in different storage media, and the difference between the assessments are presented in [Table 3].
Table 3: VHN results (Mean ± SD) for both composite materials as function of immersion solutions and time

Click here to view


Orange juice showed statistically significantly the lowest VHN mean value (92.7) followed by the Cola group (95.15) then the distilled water group (104.02) compared to the control group (117.4). Microhybrid composite groups showed statistically significant higher VHN mean value (10 8.1) than the nanofilled composite (100.2). The 7days groups showed statistically significant lower VHN mean value (97.3) than 24h groups (106.6).


   Discussion Top


This study was intended to evaluate the surface microhardness change of the top surface of two composite resin materials after storage in two different acidic beverages: Coca-Cola (pH = 2.5) and orange juice (pH = 3.5) for 1 day and 7 days, at 37°C.[14],[16] The storage in the acidic medium was continual, in order to demonstrate long-term exposure to acidic drinks in the oral cavity. The consumption of Coca-Cola for a month was found to be similar to storage for 1 day.[17]

Composite resin specimens were prepared 2 mm thick to ensure maximum polymerization. Adequate polymerization is critical for the success of composite resin restorations, as incomplete curing is accountable for water sorption, reducing wear resistance and strength, and leaching of residual monomer[16],[18]

The use of distilled water in the present study, was an attempt to simulate the moist oral environment provided by the saliva. Distilled water was used to mimic the flushing action of salivary flow as the artificial saliva does not reflect a clinically relevant surrounding.[19] On the other hand, Turssi, et al,[20] studied the influence of immersion media on the surface characteristics of composite resin restorations and found comparable outcomes for distilled water and artificial saliva.

This study showed that the immersion of both types of resin composite discs in distilled water decreased the microhardness significantly after 24 hours for the nanofilled composite and after 7 days for both nanofilled and microhybrid compared to the control group that can be due to water sorption that has been shown to be the main reason for the onset and propagation of microcracks, surface flaws, debonding of filler particles, release of unreacted monomers, and plasticization over time. In addition, the hydrophilic characteristics of Bis-GMA, UDMA and Bis-EMA may contribute to the reduction in surface hardness of specimens stored in distilled water.[21],[22]

On the other hand, composite resin materials exposed to acidic beverages reported matrix decomposition, surface erosion and dissolution.[23] The acids present in these beverages penetrated the resin matrix which soften the Bis-GMA and facilitate the release of unreacted monomers.[2] UDMA, TEGDMA AND Bis-GMA are very susceptible to absorption and solubility which may lead to softening and degradation of the resin matrix.[24]

The results of this study revealed that the two composite resin materials exhibited a significant decrease in surface microhardness values after the 24-hours and 7-days storage periods, irrespective of the beverage used. However, specimens that were stored in acidic beverages showed higher surface microhardness decrease when compared to the specimens stored in distilled water after both storage periods. These results were in agreement with Khan et al. and Al-Shekhli and Aubi.[25],[26] Thus, the first null hypothesis, which proclaimed that “there would be no influence for the type of acidic beverage on the surface microhardness of composite resin materials”, was rejected.

In this study, the orange juice with higher pH value than cola showed statistically significant lower microhardness values compared to distilled water and cola groups.

According to previous studies, acidic solutions result in degradation of restorative materials,[27],[28],[29],[30] and consequent decrease in their hardness. It has been noted that the erosive potential of a solution is not dependent only on the low pH, the titratable acidity, acid concentration, type of acid, the immersion time in the acidic beverages and the composition of the beverage are also of great consideration.[31] The titratable acidity of orange juice was found higher than that of the cola drink which is an important factor that can alter the material surface microhardness.[32]

In other studies, it has been shown that the erosive potential of the acidic beverages may depend on their chelation properties and the frequency and duration of consumption.[33] In citric acid solutions, the degradation depends on the diffusion and the chelation between the acid anions and the eluted particles.[34]

The results were also in agreement with Ortengren et al. who attributed the significant increase in solubility of composite resin materials immersed in citric acid to the pH of the solution and the storage time.[35] On the other hand, the immersion of composite resin in organic acids promotes polymer softening caused by leaching of filler particles.[36],[37]

Also the results of this study were in accordance with Nicholas et al,[38] who found the immersion in orange juice reduced the microhardness values more than the immersion in Coca-cola soft drink although the latter’s pH was less than that of orange juice. They claimed that phosphoric acid appeared relatively less aggressive than citric acid and able to buffer aqueous acid solutions and the extent of this buffering capability varied with storage duration.

In general, regardless of the type of low pH beverages used, both composite resin restorative materials showed statistically significant reduction in surface microhardness results after 7-days immersion duration than after 24-hours. This may be due to liquid absorption, and the plasticizing effect of water molecules inside the resin matrix,[13] leading to expansion of the matrix and softening of the resin polymer, decreasing the frictional forces between the polymer bands.[39],[40]

Two different types of resin composites were evaluated, a nanofilled type that provides better brightness, good optical properties and lower wear rates, and a microhybrid type which provide proper wear resistance and satisfactory mechanical properties[41]

The results of this study showed significant decrease in microhardness of nanofilled and microhybrid composite resin when stored in different acidic beverages for 24 hours and 7 days compared to the control and distilled water group which was in agreement with Maganur et al,[30] they stated that the low pH drinks have deleterious effects on the long survival of the restorative materials. Other investigators have concluded that the exposure of composite resin to acidic beverages can have a detrimental impact on their mechanical properties.[42],[43],[44]

The nanofilled composite showed statistically significant lower microhardness values compared to the micro hybrid when immersed in orange juice that may be due to the high amount of organic matrix in nanofilled composites that may result in higher ability to water sorption and material disintegration.[45] In addition, zirconia/silica fillers were found to be liable to water attack, and the smaller surface area of spherical shaped zirconia/silica fillers bonded to the resin matrix leached more easily.[46],[47] Thus, the second null hypothesis, which proclaimed that “ there would be no difference in microhardness values for both tested composite resin materials” was rejected.

On the other hand, researchers have claimed that the type of storage media and the constituents of dental resins are critical aspects concerning the degradation of composite resins.[48]

Therefore, the longevity of composite resins is highly influenced by the inherent properties of the materials and the surrounding media.[49] Composite resin restorations are exposed to disintegration resulting from the effect of chemical constituents in the saliva, food, beverages, and daily mouthwashes, even in the absence of mechanical loads or abrasive forces.[50]


   Conclusions Top


Under the conditions of this study:

  1. All storage media reduced hardness of resin composites with orange juice showing the highest reduction in hardness values.


  2. Microhybrid is more resistant to degradation than nanofilled composite.


  3. Over time, microhardness of resin composites decreased progressively


Acknowledgement

Not applicable.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Authors contributions

Not applicable.

Ethical policy and institutional review board statement

Not applicable.

Patient declaration of consent

Not applicable.

Data availability statement

All data generated or analyzed in this study are included in this article.

 
   References Top

1.
Hasanain FA, Nassar HM, Ajaj RA Effect of light curing distance on microhardness profiles of bulk-fill resin composites. Polymers 2022;14:528.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Somayaji SK, Amalan A, Ginjupalli K Effect of different acidic beverages on microhardness of nanohybrid composite, giomer, and microhybrid composite. World Journal of Dentistry 2016;7:126-8.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Szczesio-Wlodarczyk A, Sokolowski J, Kleczewska J, Bociong K Ageing of dental composites based on methacrylate resins. a critical review of the causes and method of assessment. Polymers 2020;12:882.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Barve D, Dave PN, Gulve MN, Meera Sahib MA, Naz F, Shahabe SA Effect of commonly consumed beverages on microhardness of two types of composites. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2020;13:663-7.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Erdemir U, Yildiz E, Eren MM Effects of sports drinks on color stability of nanofilled and microhybrid composites after long-term immersion. J Dent 2012;40 Suppl 2:e55-63.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Rathod A, Vadavadagi SV, Verma T, Kumar P, Deepak PV, Deb S, et al. Effect of acidic beverages on color stability and microhardness of various esthetic restorative materials: A comparative study. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2021;13(Suppl 2):S1084-7.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Beun S, Glorieux T, Devaux J, Vreven J, Leloup G Characterization of nanofilled compared to universal and microfilled composites. Dent Mater 2007;23:51-9.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Jafarpour D, Ferooz R, Ferooz M, Bagheri R Physical and mechanical properties of bulk-fill, conventional, and flowable resin composites stored dry and wet. International Journal of Dentistry 2022;10:7946239.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Balagopal S, Geethapriya N, Anisha S, Hemasathya BA, Vandana J Comparative evaluation of the degree of conversion of four different composites polymerized using ultrafast photopolymerization technique: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2021;24:77-82.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Peris AR, Mitsui FH, Amaral CM, Ambrosano GM, Pimenta LA The effect of composite type on microhardness when using quartz-tungsten-halogen (Qth) or Led lights. Oper Dent 2005;30:649-54.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Moghaddasi N, Tavallali M, Jafarpour D, Ferooz R, Bagheri R Effect of nanofilled resin-base coating on the mechanical and physical properties of resin composites. European Journal of Dermatology 2021:15:202-9.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Elwardani G, Sharaf AA, Mahmoud A Evaluation of colour change and surface roughness of two resin based composites when exposed to beverages commonly used by children: An in-vitro study. Eur Arch of Paed Dent 2019;20: 267-76.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Camilotti V, Mendonça MJ, Dobrovolski M, Detogni AC, Ambrosano GMB, De Goes MF Impact of dietary acids on the surface roughness and morphology of composite resins. J Oral Sci 2020;63:18-21.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Colombo M, Gallo S, Poggio C, Ricaldone V, Arciola CR, Scribante A New resin-based bulk-fill composites: In vitro evaluation of micro-hardness and depth of cure as infection risk indexes. Materials 2020;13:1308.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Colombo M, Poggio C, Lasagna A, Chiesa M, Scribante A Vickers micro-hardness of new restorative CAD/CAM dental materials: Evaluation and comparison after exposure to acidic drink. Materials 2019;12:1246. [CrossRef] [PubMed]  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Omoush M, El-Mowafy O, Kojic D Effect of dental composite increment thickness on hardening of bulk-fil resin composite restorative. IJCMCR 2021;13:003.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Sarikaya IB, Güler AU Effects of different surface treatments on the color stability of various dental porcelains. J Dent Sci 2011;6:65-71. [CrossRef]  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
da Silva EM, Poskus LT, Guimarães JG, de Araújo Lima Barcellos A, Fellows CE Influence of light polymerization modes on degree of conversion and crosslink density of dental composites. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2008;19:1027-32.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Oja J, Lassila L, Vallittu PK, Garoushi S Effect of accelerated aging on some mechanical properties and wear of different commercial dental resin composites. Materials 2021;14:2769.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Borges MG, Soares CJ, Maia TS, Bicalho AA, Barbosa TP, Costa HL, et al. Effect of acidic drinks on shade matching, surface topography, and mechanical properties of conventional and bulk-fill composite resins. J Prosthet Dent 2019;121:868.e1-8.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Moyin S, Lahiri B, Sam G, Nagdev P, Kumar NN Evaluation of the impact of acidic drink on the microhardness of different esthetic restorative materials: An in vitro study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020;21:233-7.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Rathod A, Vadavadagi SV, Verma T, Kumar P, Deepak PV, Deb S, et al. Effect of acidic beverages on color stability and microhardness of various esthetic restorative materials: A comparative study. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2021;13:1084-7.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Geha O, Inagaki LT, Favaro JC, González AHM, Guiraldo RD, Lopes MB, et al. Effect of chemical challenges on the properties of composite resins. Int J Dent 2021;2021:4895846.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
De Witte AM, De Maeyer EA, Verbeeck RM Surface roughening of glass ionomer cements by neutral naf solutions. Biomaterials 2003;24:1995-2000.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Khan AA, Siddiqui AZ, Al-Kheraif AA, Zahid A, Divakar DD Effect of different ph solvents on micro-hardness and surface topography of dental nano-composite: An in vitro analysis. Pak J Med Sci 2015;31:854-9.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Al-Shekhli AA, Aubi IAA Beverage influence on direct restorations. World J Dent 2019;10:52-7.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
İlday N, Bayindir YZ, Erdem V Effect of three different acidic beverages on surface characteristics of composite resin restorative materials. Mater Res Innov 2010;14:385-91.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Coelho A, Paula A, Amaro I, Marto CM, Costa N, Saraiva J, et al. Mechanical characterization of two dental restorative materials after acidic challenge. J Compos Sci 2021;5:31.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Aliping-McKenzie M, Linden RW, Nicholson JW The effect of coca-cola and fruit juices on the surface hardness of glass-ionomers and ‘compomers’. J Oral Rehabil 2004;31: 1046-52.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Soares LE, Soares AL, De Oliveira R, Nahórny S The effects of acid erosion and remineralization on enamel and three different dental materials: Ft-raman spectroscopy and scanning electron microscopy analysis. Microsc Res Tech 2016;79: 646-56.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Scatena C, Galafassi D, Gomes-Silva JM, Borsatto MC, Serra MC In vitro erosive effect of pediatric medicines on deciduous tooth enamel. Braz Dent J 2014;25:22-7.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Abu-Bakr N, Han L, Okamoto A, Iwaku M Changes in the mechanical properties and surface texture of compomer immersed in various media. J Prosthet Dent 2000;84:444-52.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Guler AU, Yilmaz F, Kulunk T, Guler E, Kurt S Effects of different drinks on stainability of resin composite provisional restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent 2005;94:118-24.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Gömeç Y, Dorter C, Ersev H, Guray Efes B, Yildiz E Effects of dietary acids on surface microhardness of various tooth-colored restoratives. Dent Mater J 2004;23:429-35.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Ortengren U, Andersson F, Elgh U, Terselius B, Karlsson S Influence of ph and storage time on the sorption and solubility behaviour of three composite resin materials. J Dent 2001;29:35-41.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Ferracane JL Hygroscopic and hydrolytic effects in dental polymer networks. Dent Mater 2006;22:211-22.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Bitencourt SB, Catanoze IA, da Silva EVF, Dos Santos PH, Dos Santos DM, Turcio KHL, et al. Effect of acidic beverages on surface roughness and color stability of artificial teeth and acrylic resin. J Adv Prosthodont 2020;12:55-60.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Nicholson JW, Gjorgievska E, Bajraktarova B, McKenzie MA Changes in properties of polyacid-modified composite resins (compomers) following storage in acidic solutions. J Oral Rehabil 2003;30:601-7.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Catelan A, Briso AL, Sundfeld RH, Dos Santos PH Effect of artificial aging on the roughness and microhardness of sealed composites. J Esthet Restor Dent 2010;22:324-30.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Mitra SB, Wu D, Holmes BN An application of nanotechnology in advanced dental materials. J Am Dent Assoc 2003;134:1382-90.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Maganur PC, Prabhakar AR, Satish V, Namineni S, Kurthukoki A Erosive effect of soft drink and fresh fruit juice on restorative materials. World J Dent 2013;4:32-40.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
Sideridou ID, Karabela MM, Vouvoudi EC Physical properties of current dental nanohybrid and nanofilled light cured resin composites. Dent Mat 2011;27:598-607.  Back to cited text no. 42
    
43.
Gharatkar AA, Irani R, Shiraguppi V, Hegde V Effect of cola, orange juice, and wine on surface microhardness of nano-composites: An in vitro study. J Dent Orofac Res 2014;10:16-20.  Back to cited text no. 43
    
44.
Cengiz S, Sarac S, Özcan M Effects of simulated gastric juice on color stability, surface roughness and microhardness of laboratory-processed composites. Dent Mater J 2014;33: 343-8.  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.
Yanikoğlu N, Duymuş ZY, Yilmaz B Effects of different solutions on the surface hardness of composite resin materials. Dent Mater J 2009;28:344-51.  Back to cited text no. 45
    
46.
Yap AU, Low JS, Ong LF Effect of food-simulating liquids on surface characteristics of composite and polyacid-modified composite restoratives. Oper Dent 2000;25:170-6.  Back to cited text no. 46
    
47.
Yap AU, Tan SH, Wee SS, Lee CW, Lim EL, Zeng KY Chemical degradation of composite restoratives. J Oral Rehabil 2001;28:1015-21.  Back to cited text no. 47
    
48.
Münchow EA, Ferreira AC, Machado RM, Ramos TS, Rodrigues-Junior SA, Zanchi CH Effect of acidic solutions on the surface degradation of a micro-hybrid composite resin. Braz Dent J 2014;25:321-6.  Back to cited text no. 48
    
49.
Erdemir U, Yildiz E, Eren MM, Ozel S Surface hardness of different restorative materials after long-term immersion in sports and energy drinks. Dent Mater J 2012;31:729-36.  Back to cited text no. 49
    
50.
de Azevedo Miranda D, dos Santos Bertoldo CE, Ambrosano GM, Aguiar FH, Lima DA, Lovadino JR Effect of curing light distance and different mouthwashes on the sorption and solubility of a nanofilled composite. Eur J Esthet Dent 2013;8:88-102.  Back to cited text no. 50
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
 
  Search
 
  
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Article in PDF (292 KB)
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusions
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed316    
    Printed8    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded48    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal