Effect of carbamide peroxide bleaching agent on the surface roughness and gloss of a pressable ceramic.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the influence of carbamide peroxide, 10% and 16%, on the surface roughness and gloss of a pressable ceramic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Carbamide peroxide (10% or 16%) was applied for 4 hours or 3 hours per day for 14 days, respectively, in pressable ceramic discs (14 mm × 2 mm). Specimens were stored in distilled water at 37°C. Surface roughness and gloss were determined before carbamide peroxide application (T0 ), 7 days (T7 ) and 14 days (T14 ) after the initial treatment. ANOVA was used with repeated measures and multiple comparisons with a Bonferroni adjustment (P < 0.005). RESULTS: Significant increase in surface roughness was observed over time (P < 0.001), with T0 < T7 < T14 . When the gloss was analyzed, significant differences were found (P < 0.001), control group showed a higher gloss than those of the 10% and 16% groups. Significant decrease in gloss was observed over time (P < 0.001), with T0 > T7 > T14 . CONCLUSIONS: The surface roughness of pressable ceramics increased, while their gloss significantly decreased when 10% or 16% carbamide peroxide was applied. The specimens treated with 16% carbamide peroxide exhibited higher surface roughness and less gloss than the specimens treated with 10% carbamide peroxide. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This study found that carbamide peroxide gels commonly used in at-home procedures influenced the surface roughness and gloss of a pressable ceramic that is often used for rehabilitation esthetics.

Surface roughness of composite resins subjected to hydrochloric acid.

The purpose of this study was to determine the influence of hydrochloric acid on surface roughness of composite resins subjected to brushing. Sixty samples measuring 2 mm thick x 6 mm diameter were prepared and used as experimental units. The study presented a 3x2 factorial design, in which the factors were composite resin (n=20), at 3 levels: microhybrid composite (Z100), nanofilled composite (FiltekTM Supreme), nanohybrid composite (Ice), and acid challenge (n=10) at 2 levels: absence and presence. Acid challenge was performed by immersion of specimens in hydrochloric acid (pH 1.2) for 1 min, 4 times per day for 7 days. The specimens not subjected to acid challenge were stored in 15 mL of artificial saliva at 37 oC. Afterwards, all specimens were submitted to abrasive challenge by a brushing cycle performed with a 200 g weight at a speed of 356 rpm, totaling 17.8 cycles. Surface roughness measurements (Ra) were performed and analyzed by ANOVA and Tukey test (p≤0.05). Surface roughness values were higher in the presence (1.07±0.24) as compared with the absence of hydrochloric acid (0.72±0.04). Surface roughness values were higher for microhybrid (1.01±0.27) compared with nanofilled (0.68 ±0.09) and nanohybrid (0.48±0.15) composites when the specimens were not subjects to acid challenge. In the presence of hydrochloric acid, microhybrid (1.26±0.28) and nanofilled (1.18±0,30) composites presents higher surface roughness values compared with nanohybrid (0.77±0.15). The hydrochloric acid affected the surface roughness of composite resin subjected to brushing.

Surface Roughness of Composite Resins Subjected to Hydrochloric Acid

The purpose of this study was to determine the influence of hydrochloric acid on surface roughness of composite resins subjected to brushing. Sixty samples measuring 2 mm thick x 6 mm diameter were prepared and used as experimental units. The study presented a 3x2 factorial design, in which the factors were composite resin (n=20), at 3 levels: microhybrid composite (Z100), nanofilled composite (FiltekTM Supreme), nanohybrid composite (Ice), and acid challenge (n=10) at 2 levels: absence and presence. Acid challenge was performed by immersion of specimens in hydrochloric acid (pH 1.2) for 1 min, 4 times per day for 7 days. The specimens not subjected to acid challenge were stored in 15 mL of artificial saliva at 37 oC. Afterwards, all specimens were submitted to abrasive challenge by a brushing cycle performed with a 200 g weight at a speed of 356 rpm, totaling 17.8 cycles. Surface roughness measurements (Ra) were performed and analyzed by ANOVA and Tukey test (p≤0.05). Surface roughness values were higher in the presence (1.07±0.24) as compared with the absence of hydrochloric acid (0.72±0.04). Surface roughness values were higher for microhybrid (1.01±0.27) compared with nanofilled (0.68 ±0.09) and nanohybrid (0.48±0.15) composites when the specimens were not subjects to acid challenge. In the presence of hydrochloric acid, microhybrid (1.26±0.28) and nanofilled (1.18±0,30) composites presents higher surface roughness values compared with nanohybrid (0.77±0.15). The hydrochloric acid affected the surface roughness of composite resin subjected to brushing.

Este estudo avaliou a influencia do ácido clorídrico na rugosidade superficial de resinas compostas submetidas a escovação. Sessenta corpos de prova medindo 2 mm de espessura x 6 mm de diâmetro foram confeccionados e utilizados como unidades experimentais. O presente estudo envolve uma análise fatorial 3x2, onde os fatores foram resina composta (n=20), com 3 níveis: resina composta microhíbrida (Z100), nanoparticulada (Filtek TM Supreme) e nanohíbrida (Ice); e desafio ácido (n=10), com 2 níveis: ausência e presença. O desafio ácido foi realizado por meio da imersão em ácido clorídrico (pH 1,2) por 4 h diárias, 1 min cada imersão, durante 7 dias. Os espécimes que não foram submetidos ao desafio ácido foram armazenados em 15 mL de saliva artificial a 37 °C. Todos os espécimes foram submetidos ao desafio abrasivo. O processo de escovação foi realizado com 200 g de peso, com velocidade de 356 rpm, totalizando 17,8 ciclos. As medidas de rugosidade superficial (Ra) foram realizadas e analisadas por meio da ANOVA e teste de Tukey (p<0,05). Os valores de rugosidade superficial foram maiores na presença (1,07±0,24)quando comparado com a ausencia do ácido hidroclorídrico (0,72±0,04). A resina microhíbrida (1,01±0,27) apresentou maior rugosidade superficial que as resinas nanoparticulada (0,68±0,09) e nanohíbrida (0,48±0,15) quando os espécimes não foram submetidos ao desafio ácido. Na presença do ácido hidroclorídrico, a resina microhíbrida (1,26±0,28) e a resina nanoparticulada (1,18±0,30) apresentou maior valor de rugosidade superficia comparado com a resina nanohíbrida (0.77±0.15). O ácido hidroclorídrico influenciou a rugosidade superficial da resina composta submetida a escovação.