Journal of Conservative Dentistry
Home About us Editorial Board Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact e-Alerts Login 
Users Online: 196
Print this page  Email this page Bookmark this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
 


 
Table of Contents   
ORIGINAL ARTICLE  
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 19  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 51-55
Surface roughness and erosion of nanohybrid and nanofilled resin composites after immersion in red and white wine


1 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Dental Materials Research Unit, Faculty of Dentistry, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Songkhla, Thailand
2 Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Songkhla, Thailand

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Submission22-Aug-2015
Date of Decision17-Nov-2015
Date of Acceptance01-Dec-2015
Date of Web Publication5-Jan-2016
 

   Abstract 

Aims: This study aimed to investigate the effects of red and white wine on the surface roughness and erosion of nanohybrid and nanofilled resin composites.
Materials and Methods: Sixty specimens of each resin-based composite (RBC) were prepared. Before immersion, baseline data roughness values were recorded using a profilometer. Three groups of discs (n = 20) were then alternately immersed in red wine, white wine, and deionized water (as a control) for 25 min and artificial saliva for 5 min over four cycles. The specimens were then stored in artificial saliva for 22 h. This process was repeated for 5 days following immersion in artificial saliva for 2 days. Subsequently, the process was repeated. After immersion, the specimens were evaluated and data were analyzed by two-way repeated analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's honestly significant difference (HSD) (α = 0.05).
Results: Red wine caused significantly greater roughness and erosion than did white wine and deionized water (P < 0.05). Nanohybrid resin composites were significantly rougher than nanofilled resin composites (P < 0.05).
Conclusion: The effects of red and white wine on the surface roughness and erosion of resin composite restorative materials depended upon the physical and chemical composition of the restorative materials and the types of wine.

Keywords: Erosion; resin composite; roughness; wine

How to cite this article:
Tantanuch S, Kukiattrakoon B, Peerasukprasert T, Chanmanee N, Chaisomboonphun P, Rodklai A. Surface roughness and erosion of nanohybrid and nanofilled resin composites after immersion in red and white wine. J Conserv Dent 2016;19:51-5

How to cite this URL:
Tantanuch S, Kukiattrakoon B, Peerasukprasert T, Chanmanee N, Chaisomboonphun P, Rodklai A. Surface roughness and erosion of nanohybrid and nanofilled resin composites after immersion in red and white wine. J Conserv Dent [serial online] 2016 [cited 2018 Dec 11];19:51-5. Available from: http://www.jcd.org.in/text.asp?2016/19/1/51/173199

   Introduction Top


Over the past 3-4 years, wine consumption has dramatically increased across most markets and wine sectors. There are many people who drink wine between meals or in social drinking. Several studies showed that wine tasters have dental erosion due to the frequency of tasting wine and that erosion is related to the acidity of wine. [1] Additionally, drinking wine may affect the esthetic and physical properties of resin-based composite (RBC) restorations. [2]

Currently, RBCs are widely used in esthetic restorative dentistry. Nanocomposites are the latest types of RBCs. Nanocomposites are occur in two subtypes, nanofilled and nanohybrid. They are becoming very popular in esthetic restorative dentistry because of the many advantages of their material compositions, in terms of the physical and mechanical properties, and they are widely used in restoring both anterior and posterior teeth. [3],[4] Nanofilled RBCs contain nanomers and nanoclusters. The particle size of nanomers is in the range of 5-75 nm. Nanoclusters are 0.6-1.4 μm and they are agglomerates of primary zirconia/silica nanoparticles (5-20 nm in size) fused together at points of contact, and the resulting porous structure is infiltrated with silane. [4] Nanohybrid RBCs consist of nanoparticles (40-50 nm) and milled glass fillers. [3]

The longevity of the materials used is one of the main factors for the success of esthetic restoration. Surface roughness may be one of the factors used to predict the longevity of the restoration due to surface degradation and erosive properties. [5] Alcohol composition in wine may affect the esthetic and physical properties of the RBC restorations [2] because alcohol is also thought to act as a plasticizer of the polymer matrix. [6] When RBC restorations are eroded, the teeth may sustain loss of anatomy, marginal discrepancy of restoration, secondary caries, [7] and an increase in the surface roughness of restorations. Surface roughness of restoration results in plaque and staining deposits at restoration, tissue irritation, possible gingivitis, [8] and reduced longevity of restorations. [9],[10]

There are a number of studies presenting the erosive effects of wine on tooth structure, [1],[11],[12] and red wine on microhybrid and nanofilled resin composites, [13],[14],[15] but only a few studies reported the effects of wine on the surface roughness and erosion of nanofilled and nanohybrid RBCs. Therefore, the objective of this in vitro study was to investigate the effects of red and white wine on the surface roughness and erosion of nanofilled and nanohybrid RBCs, and to investigate the pH and titratable acidity of different beverages. The null hypothesis was that there would be no surface roughness and erosion difference between the nanohybrid and nanofilled resin composites after the immersion period in red wine and white wine.


   Materials and Methods Top


Specimen preparations

A total of 60 disc-shaped specimens of nanohybrid and nanofilled resin composites [shade A2, [Table 1] were prepared (10.0 mm in diameter and 2.0 mm in thickness) in a polytetrafluoroethylene cylindrical mold on a glass plate. The cylindrical mold was covered with a mylar matrix strip. A second glass plate was then placed over the mylar strip. A static load of approximately 200 g was applied to extrude excess resin composites and to obtain a smooth and flat surface on each specimen. The specimens were then polymerized for 40 s with a light-activated polymerization unit (Elipar 2500, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA). The light intensity was verified with a measuring device (Cure Rite, L.D. Caulk, Milford, DE, USA). After polymerization, the mylar strip and the glass plate on the top and bottom of the mold were removed, and the specimen was then removed from the cylindrical mold. No mechanical preparation or abrasions of the specimens were performed.
Table 1: Resin composite materials used in this study


Click here to view


The pH measurements

Red and white wine were used in this study; their compositions are shown in [Table 2]. The pH of each wine was determined using a pH meter (Orion 900A, Orion Research, Boston, MA, USA). Ten pH readings of each beverage were obtained so as to give a mean pH measurement.
Table 2: Wine and their compositions used in this study


Click here to view


Storage agent immersions and surface roughness measurements

Sixty discs of nanohybrid and nanofilled resin composites were divided into three groups of 20 specimens for immersion in red wine, white wine, and deionized water (serving as a control), respectively. Each group was subjected to a surface roughness measurement for baseline data (before immersion). Surface roughness determinations were measured by a profilometer (Surfcorder model SE-2300, Kosaka Laboratory Ltd., Tokyo, Japan). The cutoff value for surface roughness was 0.8 mm and the traversing distance of the stylus was 4 mm. The radius of the tracing diamond tip was 5 μm, and the measuring force and speed were 4 mN and 0.5 m/s, respectively. The surface roughness values (Ra, the arithmetical average of surface heights, for surface roughness and Rmax, the magnitude of the peak-to-valley height in all cutoff lengths, for erosion measurement [16] ) of each specimen were obtained in five different positions (1.5 mm apart), each before and after immersion in the storage agents.

The specimens were then alternately immersed in 25 mL of a storage agent for 25 min and in 25 mL of artificial saliva for 5 min conducted over four cycles at room temperature (about 25°C). [17] After the cyclic immersion, specimens were returned to the artificial saliva (changed daily) and kept overnight at 37°C. This process was repeated for 5 days following immersion in artificial saliva for 2 days (1 trip). Subsequently, the entire process was repeated again (for a total of 2 trips). After immersion, specimens were evaluated (on day 7 for 1 trip and day 14 for 2 trips). The same protocol was used with the different storage agents in this study. In order to maintain the original pH level of the storage agents, the agents were refreshed daily throughout the experiment. After the immersion sequence was completed, the specimens were rinsed with deionized water, blotted dry against filter paper, and subjected to postimmersion surface roughness measurement.

Statistical analysis

The surface roughness and erosion values were subjected to two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's honestly significant difference (HSD) for multiple comparisons (at α = 0.05).


   Results Top


White wine had the lowest pH (2.97 ± 0.02) and red wine had the highest pH (3.32 ± 0.02). The surface roughness and erosion values of the materials used before and after immersion are presented in [Figure 1] and [Figure 2]. Overall, red wine caused significantly rougher surfaces than did white wine and deionized water (P < 0.05). Nanohybrid RBCs were significantly rougher than nanofilled RBCs (P < 0.05).
Figure 1: Ra mean values and standard deviations of each resin composite immersed in red and white wines at different times. *Indicates statistically significant difference between before and at 7 days, and at 7 and 14 days for each parameter and resin composite. †,‡ indicates statistically significant difference among materials for each storage agent. A-E Indicates statistically significant difference among materials and storage agents for 7 and for 14 days


Click here to view
Figure 2: Rmax mean values and standard deviations of each resin composite immersed in red and white wines at different times. *Indicates statistically significant difference between before and at 7 days, and at 7 and 14 days for each parameter and resin composite. †,‡ Indicates statistically significant difference among materials for each storage agent. A-E Indicates statistically significant difference among materials and storage agents for 7 and for 14 days


Click here to view



   Discussion Top


On the basis of the data, the null hypothesis of this present study should be rejected. This study showed that after being soaked in red and white wines, the surface roughness (Ra) and erosion (Rmax) of all groups significantly increased, which is similar to a previous study. [18]

With the demand for esthetic restorations and the improvement of RBCs, nanohybrid and nanofilled RBCs have become very popular choices for restoration. However, there are limitations on the longevity of the esthetic restoration. [5] The surface roughness and erosion of materials also play an important role in replacement in esthetic areas.

This study indicated that wine's acidity has a pH ranging 2.97-3.32, which is similar to a previous study. [19] The types of wine used contained 1-5 g/L tartaric acid,1-4 g/L maleic acid and other acids including succinic acid, lactic acid, citric acid, and acetic acid. [20] There are a number of studies that have reported that acids might change the physical properties of RBCs under acidic conditions over time. In one study, RBCs presented a surface roughness with voids which showed that the acidity might have had a greater softening effect on the resin matrix or hydrolysis of the silane coupling agent and could promote dislodgement of filler particles, resulting in facilitating the erosion of RBCs. [21],[22]

Red wine used in this study contained 13.5% alcohol by volume, while white wine contained 12.5% alcohol by volume. Alcohol in beverages causes significant increases in surface roughness and erosion in resin composite because alcohol is also thought to act as a plasticizer of the polymer matrix to soften and dislodge filler particles, resulting in a rapid increase in surface roughness and erosion. [6],[18],[23] The softening effect of alcohol on the RBCs may be due to the susceptibility of bisphenol A-glycidyl methacrylate (Bis-GMA) and urethane dimethacrylate (UDMA)-based polymers. [24] This study showed that after soaking the specimens in red wine, the surface roughness and erosion of all groups significantly increased more than for white wine because red wine has a higher ethanol concentration (13.5 vol%) than white wine (12.5 vol%). This result corresponds to the results of previous studies [13],[14],[15] that evaluated the effect of red wine on microhybrid and nanofilled resin composites.

In addition, water absorption of the RBCs was an important factor in changing the surface roughness and erosion of RBCs. [25] When RBCs absorb water, a coupling agent causes hydrolysis and a loss of chemical bonding between filler particles and the resin matrix. Filler particles dislodge from the outer surface of the RBCs, causing the surface to become rougher and erode. [26] The types of resin matrix in RBCs are also influenced by the water absorption of RBCs. Soderholm et al. [27] reported that Bis-GMA absorbs less water than the resin made by triethylene glycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA), but absorbs more water than the resins made by UDMA and Bis-EMA. RBCs used in this study showed that nanohybrid resin composites composed of TEGDMA, while nanofilled resin composite (Filtek Z350 XT) did not.

The filler particle size has been correlated to the surface roughness and erosion of RBCs. Large filler particles will have rougher surfaces than smaller filler particles. [28],[29],[30] The RBCs used in this study were Filtek Z350 XT (nanofilled resin composite), which have an average filler particle size 0.005-0.02 microns smaller than the nanohybrid resin composites (Estelite Sigma Quick 0.2 micron, Premise 0.4 micron, and Herculite Ultra 0.4 micron). The results of this study showed that nanohybrid resin composites presented greater surface roughness and erosion than nanofilled resin composites after immersion in red wine and white wine.

The results of this study showed that the alcohol composition in wine may affect the surface roughness and erosion of nanocomposites. However, this study evaluated only in vitro effects, with some limitations. The dilution effects of saliva, including the pH change in the oral cavity, should also be considered. Therefore, further studies are required to examine the effects of wines in vivo.


   Conclusion Top


Within the limitations of this study, the following conclusions could be drawn. Red and white wine significantly increased the surface roughness and erosion of nanofilled and nanohybrid resin composites after evaluation at the end of the 14 days' immersion period. The effects of red and white wine on the surface roughness and erosion of resin composite restorative materials depend upon the physical and chemical composition of the restorative materials and the types of wine.

Financial support and sponsorship

Faculty of Dentistry research fund, Prince of Songkla University.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
   References Top

1.
Lupi-Peguruer L, Muller M, Leforestier E, Bertrand MF, Bolla M. In vitro action of Bordeaux red wine on the microhardness of human dental enamel. Arch Oral Biol 2003;48:141-5.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Dietschi D, Campanile G, Holz J, Meyer JM. Comparison of the color stability of ten new-generation composites: An in vitro study. Dent Mater 1994;10:353-62.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
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. 3
    
4.
Moszner N, Klapdohr S. Nanotechnology for dental composites. Int J Nanotechnol 2004;1:130-56.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Wu SS, Yap AU, Chelvan S, Tan ES. Effect of prophylaxis regimens on surface roughness of glass ionomer cements. Oper Dent 2005;30:180-4.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Ferracane JL, Marker VA. Solvent degradation and reduced fracture toughness in aged composites. J Dent Res 1992;71:13-9.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Yap AU, Wu SS, Chelven S, Tan ES. Effect of hygiene maintenance procedures on surface roughness of composite restoratives. Oper Dent 2005;30:99-104.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Quirynen M. The clinical meaning of the surface roughness and the surface free energy of intra-oral hard substrata on the microbiology of the supra- and subgingival plaque: Results of in vitro and in vivo experiments. J Dent 1994;22(Suppl 1):S13-6.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Dunkin RT, Chambers DW. Gingival response to class V composite resin restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 1983;106:482-4.  Back to cited text no. 9
[PUBMED]    
10.
Chan KC, Fuller JL, Hormati AA. The ability of foods to stain two composite resins. J Prosthet Dent 1980;43:542-5.  Back to cited text no. 10
[PUBMED]    
11.
Mandel L. Dental erosion due to wine consumption. J Am Dent Assoc 2005;136:71-5.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Meurman JH, Vesterinen M. Wine, alcohol, and oral health, with special emphasis on dental erosion. Quintessence Int 2000;31:729-33.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Lepri CP, Palma-Dibb RG. Surface roughness and color change of a composite: Influence of beverages and brushing. Dent Mat J 2012;31:689-96.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
de Alencar E Silva Leite ML, da Cunha Medeiros E Silva FD, Meireles SS, Duarte RM, Andrade AK. The effect of drinks on color stability and surface roughness of nanocomposites. Eur J Dent 2014;8:330-6.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Bansal K, Acharya SR, Saraswathi V. Effect of alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages on color stability and surface roughness of resin composites: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2012;15:283-8.  Back to cited text no. 15
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
16.
Stout KJ. Surface roughness: Measurement, interpretation and significance of data. Mater Eng 1981;2:260-5.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Wongkhantee S, Patanapiradej V, Maneenut C, Tantbirojn D. Effect of acidic food and drinks on surface hardness of enamel, dentine, and tooth-coloured filling materials. J Dent 2006;34:214-20.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Sarrett DC, Coletti DP, Peluso AR. The effects of alcoholic beverages on composite wear. Dent Mater 2000;16:62-7.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Gray A, Ferguson MM, Wall JG. Wine tasting and dental erosion. Case report. Aust Dent J 1998;43:32-4.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Hernández-Orte P, Cacho JF, Ferreira V. Relationship between varietal amino acid profile of grapes and wine aromatic composition. Experiments with model solutions and chemometric study. J Agric Food Chem 2002;50:2891-9.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Munchow 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. 21
    
22.
Reddy PS, Tejaswi KL, Shetty S, Annapoorna BM, Pujari SC, Thippenswamy HM. Effects of commonly consumed beverages on surface roughness and color stability of the nano, microhybrid and hybrid composite resins: An in vitro study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013;14:718-23.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Ahmed KI, Sajjan G. Color stability of ionomer and resin composite restoratives in various environmental solutions: An in vitro reflection spectrophotometric study. J Conserv Dent 2005;8:45-51.  Back to cited text no. 23
  Medknow Journal  
24.
Kao EC. Influence of food stimulating solvents on resin composites and glass ionomer restorative cement. Dent Mater 1989;5:201-8.  Back to cited text no. 24
[PUBMED]    
25.
Martin N, Jedynakiewicz N. Measurement of water sorption in dental composites. Biomaterials 1998;19:77-83.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Wilson F, Heath JR, Watts DC. Finishing composite restorative materials. J Oral Rehabil 1990;17:79-87.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Söderholm KJ, Zigan M, Ragan M, Fischlschweiger W, Bergman M. Hydrolytic degradation of dental composites. J Dent Res 1984;63: 1248-54.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
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;15:137-40.  Back to cited text no. 28
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
29.
Heintze SD, Forjanic M. Surface roughness of different dental materials before and after simulated toothbrushing in vitro. Oper Dent 2005;30: 617-26.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Jones CS, Billington RW, Pearson GJ. The in vivo perception of roughness of restorations. Br Dent J 2004;196:42-5;discussion 31.  Back to cited text no. 30
    

Top
Correspondence Address:
Assoc. Prof. Boonlert Kukiattrakoon
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Dental Materials Research Unit, Faculty of Dentistry, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Songkhla
Thailand
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.173199

Rights and Permissions


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]



 

Top
 
 
 
  Search
 
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  
 


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

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1813    
    Printed38    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded167    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal