Skip to main content
Download PDF

Effect of immersion and thermocycling in different beverages on the surface roughness of single- and multi-shade resin composites

BMC Oral Health volume 23, Article number: 367 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Resin composite restorations are highly esthetic restorations, which should have and maintain high surface polish. However, esthetic restorations are subjected to different beverages at variable temperatures, which may affect their surface roughness. This study aimed to evaluate the surface roughness of single-shade (Omnichroma) and multi-shade (Filtek Z350XT) composite materials, following aging by immersion and thermocycling in different beverages, simulating one year of clinical service.

Methods

Thirty specimens of each material were prepared and divided into 6 subgroups (n = 5). In each material, the grouping of the specimens was as follows: the first subgroup was the as-prepared specimens stored dry without immersion or thermocycling. The second, third, and fourth subgroups were immersed in saliva, tea, and red wine, respectively, for 12 days at 37 °C. The fifth and sixth subgroups were thermocycled for 10,000 cycles, in tea (the fifth between 37 and 57 °C) and in red wine (the sixth between 37 °C and12°C). The resultant surface roughness was measured by two different methods, stylus profilometer and atomic force microscopy (AFM). Intergroup comparison was performed using independent t test, while intragroup comparison was performed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey’s post-hoc test.

Results

Intergroup comparison between both composites showed no statistically significant differences in all groups using the stylus profilometer roughness measurements (P>0.05), while the AFM measurements showed significant difference (P ≤ 0.05) within all storage media except the as-prepared control (P = 0.0645), where nanofilled Filtek Z350 XT showed lower nano-roughness. Intragroup comparison data were variable, depending on the material, aging conditions, and roughness assessment tool. However, the resultant average surface roughness (Ra) values in all groups did not exceed the threshold value of Ra 0.2 μm.

Conclusions

Both resin composites attained and retained a clinically acceptable surface finish after immersion and thermocycling in different beverages.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Esthetics in dentistry has become of prime importance nowadays, where restorations of high esthetic qualities have become an important requirement by patients, especially the restoration of maxillary anterior teeth [1]. One of the main points that contributes to esthetic success of resin composite restorations is their surface quality, which depends on the gloss and smoothness of the restoration [2,3,4].

Ideally, resin composite restorations should have and maintain high color stability, surface smoothness [5], dimensional stability [6], marginal integrity [7], wear resistance [8], etc. Maintaining surface smoothness of resin composite restorations is an important requirement, as rough surfaces contribute to increased staining susceptibility and external discoloration of the restoration, plaque accumulation, gingival irritation, periodontal disease, and recurrent caries [9, 10]. Several in vivo studies suggested that the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention was 0.2 μm [11], while a clinical study reported that a change of mean surface roughness at about 0.3 μm could be detected by most of the patients by tip of the tongue [12].

Surface roughness of composite resins is mainly affected by (a) the size, hardness, and amount of fillers, (b) resin matrix composition, and (c) bonding between fillers and resin matrix [2, 13, 14]. Increasing the filler content while reducing the filler size resulted in reduction in the wear rates and improved surface smoothness of resin composite restorations [13, 15].

Restorations placed in the oral environment are constantly subjected to thermal fluctuations due to the intake of foods and beverages at different temperatures [16]; however, few reports are available on how the temperature of these foods and beverages could affect composite resins, particularly regarding their surface roughness [16]. Thermocycling may increase water sorption, which could erode the surface of resin composites through the plasticizing effect of water and the hydrolysis of silane coupling agents [17, 18]. In addition, the pH of beverages (such as tea, coffee, wine, and soda drinks) could greatly affect the surface integrity of the restoration. Acidic pH solutions could cause hydrolysis and degradation of the polymer matrix [19, 20]. Moreover, alcohol in wine may act as a plasticizer of the polymer matrix, causing softening and degradation of the polymer [21], resulting in increased erosion and surface roughness in resin composites. Red wines were shown to result in increased surface roughness and erosion of nanohybrid and nanofilled resin composites, as compared to white wines, due to their higher alcohol concentration [22]. In addition a recent systematic review by Paolone et al. [23] reported that cigarette smoke, whether conventional or electronic cigarettes, significantly affect the color stability of resin composites. Cigarette smoke was also reported to affect the surface roughness of various dental resin composites materials [24,25,26,27]. Previous studies reported significant increase in the surface roughness of single-shade composite (Omnichroma) following exposure to simulated gastric acid challenge [20], while short term storage in coffee or tea solutions for 48 h or bleaching with 30% hydrogen peroxide did not affect its surface roughness [28, 29]. Based on the previous mentioned studies, the effect of longer staining durations, different beverages, and artificial aging protocols on the surface roughness of single-shade composite (Omnichroma) is still rather limited.

The oldest and most used surface parameter is the average roughness (Ra), also known as the center line average (CLA) [30]. The Ra value is defined as the arithmetic average height, or the average absolute deviation of the roughness irregularities from the mean line over one sampling length [31].

Surface roughness measurement can be made using either quantitative or qualitative methods. Among the quantitative methods, surface profile analysis (e.g., stylus profilometer) and atomic force microscopy (AFM) are the most common measuring methods [30]. Hence, comparing and supporting profilometry findings with AFM measurements can lead to more accurate results [32].

There is insufficient data in the literature on the effect of thermocycling of drinks (tea and red wine) in their actual daily use temperatures and immersion on the surface roughness of single-shade resin composites as compared to the widely investigated multi-shade resin composites. Therefore, it was found beneficial in the current study to investigate the combined effect of different artificial aging protocols (immersion and thermocycling) in different solutions (artificial saliva, tea, and red wine), simulating one year of clinical service, on the surface roughness of two resin composite types (single-shade and multi-shade), and comparing the resultant surface roughness to the critical value reported in the literature (0.2 μm). The null hypotheses tested are that there will be no difference between surface roughness of both composites and that there will be no difference between different storage methods for both composites.

Materials and methods

Two different composite materials were used in the present study, single-shade composite (Omnichroma Tokuyama Dental, Tokyo, Japan) and multi-shade composite (Filtek Z350 XT 3 M ESPE, Minnesota, USA). Materials used in the current study are described in Table 1.

Table 1 Materials’ manufacturer, composition, shade and lot number
Full size table

Sample size calculation

In a previous study by Nithya et al. in 2020 [33], the surface roughness within nanofilled resin composite (Filtek Z350XT) was normally distributed with standard deviation 0.104. By adopting a small Cohen’s d effect size of 0.2 as a difference between single-shade resin composite (Omnichroma) and multi-shade resin composite (Filtek Z350XT), we needed to study 5 experimental specimens per each subgroup to be able to reject the null hypothesis that the surface roughness means of the experimental and control groups were equal. The Type I error probability associated with this test of the null hypothesis was 0.05 and type 2 error probability was 0.2 with a power of 80%. Sample size was calculated using PS Power and Sample, version 3 for Windows (William D. Dupont and Walton D. Plummer) using independent t test.

Specimens’ preparation

A total of 60 specimens were prepared, 30 specimens for each material, using a 1-mm thick and 8-mm diameter Teflon mold. After the composite resins were placed in the molds, Mylar strips and microscope glass slides were applied over the top surface of the composite resins using finger pressure. Each sample was light-cured through the Mylar strip and the glass slide for 20 s using a light-emitting diode (LED) curing unit (Mini LED, Satelec, Acteon, France), at a light intensity of 1,000 mW/cm2 from the top and bottom surfaces. The light intensity of the LED curing unit was checked with a spectroradiometer (Demetron Research Corp. USA). The flat smooth surface of the tested specimens was produced through polymerization of the pressed resin composite against a Mylar strip under pressure of a glass slide.

Specimens aging

After preparation, specimens were divided into two groups, with 30 specimens for each material, then each group was subdivided into 6 subgroups (n = 5) according to the aging protocol and storage media. Grouping of the specimens was as follows: the first group was the as-prepared specimens, stored dry without immersion or thermocycling. The second, third and fourth groups of both materials were stored at constant temperature of 37 °C for 12 days, where the second group was stored in artificial saliva, the third group was stored in tea (Lipton Yellow Label; Unilever; UK) and the fourth group was stored in red wine (Omar El Khayam; Egypt). Every 3 days, specimens were rinsed with distilled water and immersed in fresh solutions to avoid any bacterial or fungal contamination [34, 35]. The fifth and sixth groups were thermocycled for 10,000 cycles over a dwell time of 60 s and a transfer time of 10 s at temperature range of the common average drinking temperature of tea (between 57 °C and 37 °C) and red wine (between 12 and 37 °C). The study was conducted to simulate one-year of clinical service, where immersion for 12 days in staining solution is equivalent to one year of beverages consumption [36], while in vitro thermocycling for 10,000 cycles simulates one year clinically [36, 37].

Stylus profilometer roughness evaluation

The average surface roughness (Ra, in µm), of the specimens was measured using contact mode surface profilometer (TR 220 Surface Roughness Tester, TIME Group, Pittsburgh, PA, USA), using a cut-off value of 0.8 mm and a range of 40 μm. Three measurements were recorded for each specimen and an average surface roughness (Ra) was determined for each specimen.

AFM roughness evaluation

Three-dimensional (3D) roughness profiles were assessed with contact mode AFM (5600LS Agilent Technology Company). Representative samples from each group were examined, three areas were randomly selected from each sample for Ra measurement, and AFM images were taken. Condition of measurement was as follows: size 200 × 200 nm, speed 0.71 inch/sec, I Gain = 2 and P Gain = 4 using contact mode.

Statistical analysis

Data was analyzed using Medcalc software, version 19 for Windows (MedCalc Software Ltd, Ostend, Belgium). Data showed normal distribution using Kolmogrov Smirnov test and Shapiro Wilk test. Continuous data were described using mean and standard deviation. Intergroup comparison between continuous data was performed using independent t test, while intragroup comparison was performed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey’s post-hoc test. Partial correlation was used to correlate between stylus profilometer and AFM methods to assess surface roughness under the influence of material type and storage method. A P value less than or equal to 0.05 was considered statistically significant and all tests were two tailed.

Results

Stylus profilometer roughness measurement

The surface roughness measurements obtained using the stylus profilometer are shown in Table 2. Intergroup comparison between both composites have shown no significant differences in all groups (P>0.05) within each storage medium. Using one-way ANOVA, the intragroup comparison of storage media within the single-shade group showed a significant difference in the surface roughness resulting from storage in different immersion media (P < 0.001*). The artificial saliva produced the highest surface roughness, while storage in tea and red wine (immersion and thermocycling) induced the least roughness value, and the as-prepared control group showed intermediate roughness values. However, within the multi-shade group, there was no statistically significant difference between different storage media (P = 0.788).

Table 2 Mean and standard deviation of surface roughness of both materials within each storage medium measured with stylus profilometer
Full size table

AFM roughness evaluation

The surface roughness measurement results obtained using the AFM are shown in Table 3. Intergroup comparison between both composites showed no significant difference within the control group (P = 0.0645), while it showed significant difference within the other groups (P ≤ 0.05) within each storage medium. Using one-way ANOVA, intragroup comparison of storage media within the single-shade group showed no statistically significant difference (P = 0.528), while within the multi-shade group there was statistically significant difference between different storage media (P = 0.005). Figure 1 shows the 3D images of surface topography obtained for different groups of single-shade and multi-shade composites.

Table 3 Mean and standard deviation of surface roughness of both materials within each storage medium measured with AFM
Full size table
Fig. 1
figure 1

The 3D images of surface topography by AFM; (a) Single-shade (Omnichroma), (b) Multi-shade (Filtek Z350 XT)

Full size image

Correlation between stylus profilometer and AFM data

There was negligible correlation between both methods in assessment of surface roughness (Correlation coefficient r = 0.2246, P = 0.2016).

Discussion

Resin composite is a commonly used esthetic restoration, yet it is subjected to several oral fluids and beverages which may affect its surface roughness [22, 38, 39]. In the current study, the surface roughness of two resin composites (single-shade and multi-shade) was evaluated following aging in artificial saliva, tea and red wine using stylus profilometer and AFM. The stylus profilometer results showed no significant difference in the surface roughness between the two materials in the different storage media (P>0.05); therefore, the first null hypothesis was accepted. On the other hand, the AFM revealed significant difference between the two materials after artificial aging (P ≤ 0.05); therefore, the first null hypothesis was rejected. There was significant difference between storage media within the single-shade group using stylus profilometer and within the multi-shade group using AFM (P ≤ 0.05); therefore, the second null hypothesis was rejected. On the other hand, there was no significant difference between storage media within the multi-shade group using stylus profilometer and within the single shade group using AFM (P>0.05); therefore, the second null hypothesis was accepted.

The difference between stylus profilometer and AFM may be attributed to the low sensitivity of the stylus profilometer as a measuring tool compared to the AFM. The main limitation of stylus profilometer is the actual tip radius, which acts as mechanical filter unable to accurately detect features smaller than the tip radius [40]. Therefore, the stylus profilometer could not detect the nano-roughness. However, the AFM allowed the visualization of the surface topography of resin composite at a high spatial resolution, offering more detailed surface information than the profilometer [32]. There was negligible correlation between the two measuring methods, and this may explain the difference in the surface roughness values recorded by the stylus profilometer compared to that measured by the AFM for the same specimens. The mechanical stylus profilometer had an average resolution of 5 μm in x-y axis and 0.01 μm in z axis, while the AFM had higher resolution of ≈ 0.2 μm and 1.5 pm in x-y and z axes, respectively [41]. The stylus profilometer measured a larger area and provided information about micro-roughness, but the AFM scanned a smaller area with higher resolution, providing data at the nano-scale level which could not be detected by the stylus profilometer [32]. Therefore, they could be used simultaneously to give a comprehensive vision of the surface roughness.

The AFM showed no significant difference between the as-prepared specimens of the two materials without artificial aging. This may be attributed to the standardization of the specimens̕ preparation procedure [42]. Mylar strips are reported to produce optimally smooth surfaces as compared to different finishing and polishing systems [43,44,45]. This eliminated any variables during finishing and polishing that might interfere with the obtained smooth surfaces of the tested materials and avoided the introduction of any scratches and cracks which would increase the surface roughness [44], [46]; therefore, the two materials were evaluated in a more standardized manner. After aging in the different storage media, the AFM revealed that the multi-shade resin composite (Filtek Z350 XT) showed lower nano-roughness compared to the single-shade resin composite (Omnichroma). This may be due to the difference in the filler size present in the two materials. The multi-shade had relatively smaller sized fillers (20 nm silica filler and 4 to 11 nm zirconia filler) compared to the larger filler size of the single-shade (260 nm spherical silica and zirconia). In addition, the organic matrix of the multi-shade had Bis-GMA in its composition, which has lower susceptibility to acidic erosion and shows lower solubility compared to UDMA alone [47], [48].

It was previously reported that surface roughness above 0.2 μm resulted in increased bacterial accumulation and plaque adhesion. It was recommended to reduce the surface roughness below this value. The Ra = 0.2 μm was termed as ̎critical or threshold value̎ [18], [49]. In the present research, the roughness values detected by both the stylus profilometer and the AFM did not exceed the threshold value (0.2 μm) and were considered clinically accepted. This may be attributed to the filler size of the two examined materials. The single-shade resin composite contained uniform size spherical silica and zirconia fillers, 260 nm in size. These fillers, being larger than 100 nm, are considered submicron-sized particles and are described by the manufacturers as supra nano-fillers. However, the nanofilled multi-shade composite contains non-agglomerated/non-aggregated 20 nm silica filler and 4 to 11 nm zirconia filler, and aggregated zirconia/silica cluster filler (composed of 20 nm silica and 4 to 11 nm zirconia particles).

Regarding the intragroup comparison of storage media within single-shade, the stylus profilometer showed that there were significant differences in the micro-surface roughness resulting from storage in the different immersion media. The artificial saliva led to the highest surface roughness. This may be due to the degrading effect of saliva on the UDMA and TEGDMA, which were the only two components of the organic matrix of Omnichrona [47]. Storage in tea and red wine produced the least roughness value, and this may be due to their acidic erosive effect [32]. The mean pH of tea and red wine were 4.9 [50] and 3.3 [51], respectively. It was reported that in low pH drinks, resin composites display high solubility, which causes surface dissolution [16] and possible re-precipitation, which may result in reduced surface roughness as shown in the AFM images (Fig. 1). Several reports are in agreement with the current findings, where low pH of the solution alone doesn’t indicate the aggressiveness of surface degradation of resin composites [8, 52]. Several other factors might contribute to the polymer’s degradation, including the crosslinking nature of the polymeric matrix, solubility parameter, and water uptake [52].

The intragroup comparison of storage media within the multi-shade group using the stylus profilometer did not detect any significant difference in the surface roughness among the various storage media. This may be due to its composition, which contains Bis-GMA and nanofillers. Bis-GMA provided lower susceptibility to acidic erosion and lower solubility compared to UDMA in the single-shade group [47, 48].

Using the AFM, the intragroup comparison of the storage media within the single-shade showed no significant difference in the nano-surface roughness. Within the multi-shade, the difference in surface roughness after the aging was less than 1 nm (maximum and minimum values were 1.3 nm and 0.5 nm, respectively). This minor variation in the surface roughness after artificial aging within each material may be attributed to the effect of the low pH drinks, which cause dissolution of the surface of resin composites and re-precipitation, resulting in nearly the same surface topography.

Thermocycling may increase water sorption, which may affect the mechanical properties of composites due to hydrolytic degradation and failure at the matrix-resin interface [17, 18]. In addition, thermocycling was reported to increase the surface degradation of resin composites due to the induction of superficial stresses and the formation of microcracks [53]. However, in the current study, no significant difference was detected in the surface roughness of specimens thermocycled for 10,000 cycles and non-thermocycled specimens. Similarly, other studies reported no significant difference in surface roughness following thermocycling compared to baseline [17, 53]. On the other hand, these findings were not in accordance with the study conducted by Minami et al. [17], where thermocycling for 50,000 cycles significantly increased the surface roughness of the investigated resin composites. These differences in results could be attributed to the difference in the thermocycling parameters employed in the different studies, where a higher number of cycles, simulating longer clinical durations, may increase the effect of thermocycling on the degradation of resin composites [17].

The surface roughness after acidic beverages depends on several factors, including the organic matrix structure and inorganic filler content and size, in addition to the characterization tool [32]. The chemical composition and pH of the acidic drink as well as the method of aging process performed also affect the results. This may explain the great variation in the literature studying the effect of acidic beverages on the surface roughness of resin composites. In the present research the surface roughness was assessed by two methods after two artificial aging protocols using three storage media for two resin composites with different organic composition and filler size. Despite these variables, it was observed in this study that all the reported surface roughness was clinically accepted. This may be due to the major effect of the submicron and nano-fillers.

Limitations of the current study include evaluating a limited number of materials. Using a variety of materials from different manufacturers with different compositions could be more comprehensive. In addition, although a Mylar strip was used to obtain a flat smooth surface, it was reported that it may produce a superficial layer reach in organic matrix, which could be more susceptible to staining and degradation [54]. However, in the current study this emphasized the importance of the matrix composition, where multi-shade composite containing Bis-GMA showed significantly lower surface nano-roughness compared to Bis-GMA free single-shade composite. Yet, future studies investigating the effect of artificial aging for longer durations following specimens’ finishing and polishing are needed to complement the results of the current study. Further studies are also required to investigate the long-term degradation effect of the nano-roughness, which may act as retentive areas for plaque, bacteria or food debris affecting the surface and longevity of dental restorations. Therefore, detecting a nano-roughness threshold/critical value could be beneficial.

Conclusion

Within the limitation of the current study, the single shade (Omnichroma) and the multi-shade (Filtek Z350 XT) retained their surface finish with surface roughness values not exceeding the critical value of 0.2 μm after aging in artificial saliva, tea and red wine when measured by the surface profilometer and AFM.

Data Availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article in the form of tables and figures. The raw data that support the findings of this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.

References

  1. Albashaireh ZSM, Alhusein AA, Marashdeh MM. Clinical assessments and patient evaluations of the esthetic quality of maxillary anterior restorations. Int J Prosthodont. 2009;22:65–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lopes IAD, Monteiro PJVC, Mendes JJB, Gonçalves JMR, Caldeira FJ. F. The effect of different finishing and polishing techniques on surface roughness and gloss of two nanocomposites. Saudi Dent J. 2018;30:197–207.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Jassé FF, et al. Influence of filler charge on gloss of composite materials before and after in vitro toothbrushing. J Dent. 2013;41:e41–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Al-Angari SS, Eckert GJ, Sabrah AHA. Color stability, roughness, and Microhardness of Enamel and Composites submitted to Staining/Bleaching cycles. Saudi Dent J. 2021;33:215–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Meenakshi C, Sirisha K. Surface quality and color stability of posterior composites in acidic beverages. J Conserv Dent. 2020;23:57.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Molina Pule CG, García Merino IR, Aldas Ramírez JE, Falconí Borja G. & Armas Vega, A. D. C. Evaluación del grado de microfiltración en restauraciones de composite tras diferentes periodos de envejecimiento. Rev Fac Odontol 27, (2015).

  7. S P, Ranjan MA. Review on marginal deterioration of Composite Restoration. IOSR J Dent Med Sci. 2014;13:06–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Guo J, Bing Z, Yang J, Tsoi JKH, Wang Y. Effect of roughness and acidic medium on wear behavior of dental resin composite. BMC Oral Health. 2022;22:470.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Chandhok DT, et al. Effect of surface polishing and oral beverages on the surface profile and color stability of two composite resins – in vitro. Int J Curr Adv Res. 2017;6:2619–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Simos S. Direct composite resin restorations: Placement strategies. Dent Today. 2011;30:19–32.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bollenl CML, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature. Dent Mater. 1997;13:258–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Jones CS, Billington RW, Pearson GJ. The in vivo perception of roughness of restorations. Br Dent J. 2004;196:42–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lee S-Y, Kim H-C, Hur B, Park J-K. Surface roughness and color stability of various composite resins. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 2007;32:542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Guler S, Unal M. The evaluation of Color and Surface Roughness Changes in Resin based Restorative materials with different contents after waiting in various liquids: an SEM and AFM study. Microsc Res Tech. 2018;81:1422–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Tsujimoto A, et al. Wear of resin composites: current insights into underlying mechanisms, evaluation methods and influential factors. Jpn Dent Sci Rev. 2018;54:76–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Tuncer D, Karaman E, Firat E. Does the temperature of beverages affect the surface roughness, hardness, and color stability of a composite resin? Eur J Dent. 2013;07:165–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Tuncer S, Demirci M, Tiryaki M, Ünlü N, Uysal Ö. The Effect of a modeling Resin and Thermocycling on the Surface hardness, roughness, and Color of different Resin Composites. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2013;25:404–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Porojan L, Toma FR, Uțu I-D, Vasiliu RD. Optical behavior and surface analysis of Dental Resin Matrix Ceramics related to Thermocycling and Finishing. Appl Sci. 2022;12:4346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Rahim TNAT, Mohamad D, Md Akil H. Ab Rahman, I. Water sorption characteristics of restorative dental composites immersed in acidic drinks. Dent Mater. 2012;28:e63–e70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Alp CK, Gündogdu C, Ahısha CD. The Effect of Gastric Acid on the Surface Properties of Different Universal Composites: A SEM Study. Scanning 2022, 1–10 (2022).

  21. Ferracane JL, Marker VA. Solvent degradation and reduced fracture toughness in aged composites. J Dent Res. 1992;71:13–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Tantanuch S, et al. Surface roughness and erosion of nanohybrid and nanofilled resin composites after immersion in red and white wine. J Conserv Dent. 2016;19:51.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Paolone G, et al. Color stability of resin-based composites exposed to smoke. A systematic review. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2023;35:309–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Alandia-Roman CC, Cruvinel DR, Sousa ABS, Pires-de-Souza FCP, Panzeri H. Effect of cigarette smoke on color stability and surface roughness of dental composites. J Dent. 2013;41:e73–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Reymus M, Liebermann A, Spintzyk S, Stawarczyk B. Food solutions and cigarette smoke-dependent changes in color and surface texture of CAD/CAM resin composites – an in vitro study. Int J Prosthodont. 2021. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.6950.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. da Silva EM, et al. Evolution of roughness and optical properties of resin composites submitted to whitening toothpastes-cigarette smoking cycling. Am J Dent. 2023;36:31–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Theobaldo JD, et al. Effects of cigarette smoke on color, roughness and gloss of high-viscosity bulk-fill resin composites. Am J Dent. 2020;33:83–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Abdulwahhab Z, Alkhalidi E. Effect of staining and bleaching on Surface Roughness of different Nano Hybrid Resin Composite materials. Al-Rafidain Dent J. 2021;21:42–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Simos S. Direct composite resin restorations: placement strategies. Dent Today. 2011;30:108–11.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Bhushan B. Surface roughness analysis and measurement techniques. Modern tribology handbook, two volume set 79–150 (CRC Press, 2000). https://doi.org/10.1201/9780849377877-10.

  31. Abzal M, et al. Evaluation of surface roughness of three different composite resins with three different polishing systems. J Conserv Dent. 2016;19:171.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Karatas O, Gul P, Gündoğdu M, Iskenderoglu DT. An evaluation of surface roughness after staining of different composite resins using atomic force microscopy and a profilometer. Microsc Res Tech. 2020;83:jemt23519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Nithya K, Sridevi K, Keerthi V, Ravishankar P. Evaluation of Surface Roughness, Hardness, and Gloss of Composites After Three Different Finishing and Polishing Techniques: An In Vitro Study. Cureus 12, (2020).

  34. Ardu S, Duc O, Di Bella E, Krejci I. Color stability of recent composite resins. Odontology. 2017;105:29–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Saba DA, Salama RA, Haridy R. Effect of different beverages on the color stability and microhardness of CAD/CAM hybrid versus feldspathic ceramic blocks: an in-vitro study. Futur Dent J. 2017;3:61–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. ERTAS E, GÜLER AU, KÖPRÜLÜ YÜCELAÇ, H., GÜLER E. Color Stability of Resin Composites after Immersion in different drinks. Dent Mater J. 2006;25:371–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Gale M, Darvell B. Thermal cycling procedures for laboratory testing of dental restorations. J Dent. 1999;27:89–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Badra VV, Faraoni JJ, Ramos RP, Palma-Dibb RG. Influence of different beverages on the microhardness and surface roughness of resin composites. Oper Dent. 2005;30:213–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Poggio C, Dagna A, Chiesa M, Colombo M, Scribante A. Surface roughness of flowable resin composites eroded by acidic and alcoholic drinks. J Conserv Dent. 2012;15:137.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Butler DL. Encyclopedia of Microfluidics and Nanofluidics. Encyclopedia of Microfluidics and Nanofluidics. Springer US; 2013. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27758-0.

  41. Murthy NS. Techniques for analyzing biomaterial surface structure, morphology and topography. in Surface Modification of Biomaterials (ed. Williams, R. B. T.-S. M. of B.) 232–255 (Elsevier, 2011). https://doi.org/10.1533/9780857090768.2.232.

  42. El-Rashidy AA, Abdelraouf RM, Habib NA. Effect of two artificial aging protocols on color and gloss of single-shade versus multi-shade resin composites. BMC Oral Health. 2022;22:321.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Bashetty K, Joshi S. The effect of one-step and multi-step polishing systems on surface texture of two different resin composites. J Conserv Dent. 2010;13:34.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Ergücü Z, Türkün LS. Surface roughness of novel resin composites polished with one-step systems. Oper Dent. 2007;32:185–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Garg S, et al. Use of “Surface Analyzer” to evaluate the Effect of two Polishing Systems on Surface texture of four newer composites. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2018;11:266–70.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Moda MD, et al. Comparison of different polishing methods on the surface roughness of microhybrid, microfill, and nanofill composite resins. J Investig Clin Dent. 2018;9:e12287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Gajewski VES, Pfeifer CS, Fróes-Salgado NRG, Boaro LCC, Braga RR. Monomers used in resin composites: degree of conversion, mechanical properties and water sorption/solubility. Braz Dent J. 2012;23:508–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Roque ACC, et al. Surface roughness of Composite Resins Subjected to Hydrochloric Acid. Braz Dent J. 2015;26:268–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Zhang L, Yu P, Wang X-Y. Surface roughness and gloss of polished nanofilled and nanohybrid resin composites. J Dent Sci. 2021;16:1198–203.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Simpson A, Shaw L, Smith AJ. Tooth surface pH during drinking of black tea. Br Dent J. 2001. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4800977.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Tanthanuch S, et al. The effect of red and white wine on color changes of nanofilled and nanohybrid resin composites. Restor Dent Endod. 2016. https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2016.41.2.130.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Münchow EA, et al. Effect of Acidic Solutions on the Surface degradation of a Micro-Hybrid Composite Resin. Braz Dent J. 2014;25:321–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Montes-G GM, Draughn RA. In vitro surface degradation of composites by water and thermal cycling. Dent Mater. 1986;2:193–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. PATEL SB, GORDAN VV, BARRETT AA, SHEN C. The effect of surface finishing and storage solutions on the color stability of resin-based composites. J Am Dent Assoc. 2004;135:587–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not Applicable.

Funding

Open access funding provided by The Science, Technology & Innovation Funding Authority (STDF) in cooperation with The Egyptian Knowledge Bank (EKB).

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Biomaterials Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Cairo, 11562, Egypt

    Aiah A. El-Rashidy, Rasha M. Abdelraouf & Nour A. Habib

  2. Conservative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Cairo, 11562, Egypt

    Omar Shaalan

Authors
  1. Aiah A. El-Rashidy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Omar Shaalan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rasha M. Abdelraouf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nour A. Habib
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: A.E. and N.H., Experimental work: A.E., Statistical analysis: O.S., Interpretation of data: A.E., O.S., R.A. and N.H., Writing original draft: A.E., O.S., and R.A. Review and editing: N.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aiah A. El-Rashidy.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not Applicable. No humans, human samples, animals, animal samples or plant samples were involved in this study.

Consent for publication

Not Applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

El-Rashidy, A.A., Shaalan, O., Abdelraouf, R.M. et al. Effect of immersion and thermocycling in different beverages on the surface roughness of single- and multi-shade resin composites. BMC Oral Health 23, 367 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03069-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03069-w

Keywords

BMC Oral Health

ISSN: 1472-6831

Contact us