Microhardness of different esthetic restorative materials: Evaluation and comparison after exposure to acidic drink

Background: Acidic beverages, such as soft drinks (orange juice and cola), can produce erosion of resin composites. The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of immersion in acidic drink on the Vickers microhardness (VK) of different esthetic restorative materials (one nanohybrid Orm...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Claudio Poggio, Matteo Viola, Maria Mirando, Marco Chiesa, Riccardo Beltrami, Marco Colombo
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications 2018-01-01
Series:Dental Research Journal
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.drjjournal.net/article.asp?issn=1735-3327;year=2018;volume=15;issue=3;spage=166;epage=172;aulast=Poggio
_version_ 1819105597498327040
author Claudio Poggio
Matteo Viola
Maria Mirando
Marco Chiesa
Riccardo Beltrami
Marco Colombo
author_facet Claudio Poggio
Matteo Viola
Maria Mirando
Marco Chiesa
Riccardo Beltrami
Marco Colombo
author_sort Claudio Poggio
collection DOAJ
description Background: Acidic beverages, such as soft drinks (orange juice and cola), can produce erosion of resin composites. The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of immersion in acidic drink on the Vickers microhardness (VK) of different esthetic restorative materials (one nanohybrid Ormocer-based composite, one nanoceramic composite, one nanofilled composite, and one microfilled hybrid composite). Materials and Methods: In this in vitro study, thirty specimens of each esthetic restorative material were divided into three subgroups (n = 10): specimens of group 1 were used as control, specimens of group 2 were immersed in 50 ml of acidic drink for 1 day, specimens of group 3 were immersed in 50 ml of acidic drink for 7 days. Data were analyzed by Shapiro–Wilk test to assess the normality of the distributions followed by nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis analysis of variance and Mann–Whitney U-test comparison test among groups. A significant level of α = 0.05 was set for comparison between the groups. Results: Mann–Whitney U-test showed that each material showed lower microhardness values after immersion in acidic solution (P < 0.05). Paired t-test confirmed that microhardness for each composite did not change after immersion in distilled water (Control group) (P > 0.05). Significant changes were registered for all restorative materials after immersion in acidic solution for 1 day and 7 days (P < 0.05). Conclusion: The Filtek Supreme XTE, a nanofilled composite, and Admira Fusion, a nanohybrid ormocer-based composite, showed the best behavior. The Ceram X Universal (nanoceramic composite) although reached lower hardness values than the previous materials, but resisted well to the 1 week immersion in soft-drink. Finally, the Gradia Direct achieved the most disappointing results: Low microhardness values are justified by the nature of its filling (microfilled hybrid composite).
first_indexed 2024-12-22T02:24:47Z
format Article
id doaj.art-e26c3c4eb7a54645af2ff6a6ab4ab2ef
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1735-3327
2008-0255
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-22T02:24:47Z
publishDate 2018-01-01
publisher Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
record_format Article
series Dental Research Journal
spelling doaj.art-e26c3c4eb7a54645af2ff6a6ab4ab2ef2022-12-21T18:42:02ZengWolters Kluwer Medknow PublicationsDental Research Journal1735-33272008-02552018-01-0115316617210.4103/1735-3327.231863Microhardness of different esthetic restorative materials: Evaluation and comparison after exposure to acidic drinkClaudio PoggioMatteo ViolaMaria MirandoMarco ChiesaRiccardo BeltramiMarco ColomboBackground: Acidic beverages, such as soft drinks (orange juice and cola), can produce erosion of resin composites. The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of immersion in acidic drink on the Vickers microhardness (VK) of different esthetic restorative materials (one nanohybrid Ormocer-based composite, one nanoceramic composite, one nanofilled composite, and one microfilled hybrid composite). Materials and Methods: In this in vitro study, thirty specimens of each esthetic restorative material were divided into three subgroups (n = 10): specimens of group 1 were used as control, specimens of group 2 were immersed in 50 ml of acidic drink for 1 day, specimens of group 3 were immersed in 50 ml of acidic drink for 7 days. Data were analyzed by Shapiro–Wilk test to assess the normality of the distributions followed by nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis analysis of variance and Mann–Whitney U-test comparison test among groups. A significant level of α = 0.05 was set for comparison between the groups. Results: Mann–Whitney U-test showed that each material showed lower microhardness values after immersion in acidic solution (P < 0.05). Paired t-test confirmed that microhardness for each composite did not change after immersion in distilled water (Control group) (P > 0.05). Significant changes were registered for all restorative materials after immersion in acidic solution for 1 day and 7 days (P < 0.05). Conclusion: The Filtek Supreme XTE, a nanofilled composite, and Admira Fusion, a nanohybrid ormocer-based composite, showed the best behavior. The Ceram X Universal (nanoceramic composite) although reached lower hardness values than the previous materials, but resisted well to the 1 week immersion in soft-drink. Finally, the Gradia Direct achieved the most disappointing results: Low microhardness values are justified by the nature of its filling (microfilled hybrid composite).http://www.drjjournal.net/article.asp?issn=1735-3327;year=2018;volume=15;issue=3;spage=166;epage=172;aulast=PoggioAcidicdrinkerosionhardnessrestorative materials
spellingShingle Claudio Poggio
Matteo Viola
Maria Mirando
Marco Chiesa
Riccardo Beltrami
Marco Colombo
Microhardness of different esthetic restorative materials: Evaluation and comparison after exposure to acidic drink
Dental Research Journal
Acidic
drink
erosion
hardness
restorative materials
title Microhardness of different esthetic restorative materials: Evaluation and comparison after exposure to acidic drink
title_full Microhardness of different esthetic restorative materials: Evaluation and comparison after exposure to acidic drink
title_fullStr Microhardness of different esthetic restorative materials: Evaluation and comparison after exposure to acidic drink
title_full_unstemmed Microhardness of different esthetic restorative materials: Evaluation and comparison after exposure to acidic drink
title_short Microhardness of different esthetic restorative materials: Evaluation and comparison after exposure to acidic drink
title_sort microhardness of different esthetic restorative materials evaluation and comparison after exposure to acidic drink
topic Acidic
drink
erosion
hardness
restorative materials
url http://www.drjjournal.net/article.asp?issn=1735-3327;year=2018;volume=15;issue=3;spage=166;epage=172;aulast=Poggio
work_keys_str_mv AT claudiopoggio microhardnessofdifferentestheticrestorativematerialsevaluationandcomparisonafterexposuretoacidicdrink
AT matteoviola microhardnessofdifferentestheticrestorativematerialsevaluationandcomparisonafterexposuretoacidicdrink
AT mariamirando microhardnessofdifferentestheticrestorativematerialsevaluationandcomparisonafterexposuretoacidicdrink
AT marcochiesa microhardnessofdifferentestheticrestorativematerialsevaluationandcomparisonafterexposuretoacidicdrink
AT riccardobeltrami microhardnessofdifferentestheticrestorativematerialsevaluationandcomparisonafterexposuretoacidicdrink
AT marcocolombo microhardnessofdifferentestheticrestorativematerialsevaluationandcomparisonafterexposuretoacidicdrink