Sahadi Beatriz Ometto, Price Richard Bengt, André Carolina Bosso, Sebold Maicon, Bermejo Gabriel Nima, Palma-Dibb Regina Guenka, Faraoni Juliana Jendiroba, Soares Carlos José, Giannini Marcelo
Universidade Estadual de Campinas - Unicamp, Piracicaba Dental School, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil.
Dalhousie University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Dental Clinical Sciences, Halifax, Canada.
Braz Oral Res. 2018 Dec 17;32:e122. doi: 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0122.
The effects of tooth brushing could affect the long-term esthetic outcome of composite restorations. This study evaluated the effect of two different emission spectrum light-curing units on the surface roughness, roughness profile, topography and microhardness of bulk-fill composites after in vitro toothbrushing. Valo (multiple-peak) and Demi Ultra (single-peak) curing lights were each used for 10s to polymerize three bulk-fill resin composites: Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative (FBF), Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill (TET) and Surefil SDR Flow (SDR). After 30,000 reciprocal strokes in a toothbrushing machine, the roughness profile, surface roughness, surface morphology, and microhardness were examined. Representative SEM images were also obtained. When light-cured with the Demi Ultra, SDR showed the most loss in volume compared to the other composites and higher volume loss compared to when was light-cured with Valo. The highest surface roughness and roughness profile values were found in SDR after toothbrushing, for both light-curing units tested. FBF always had the greatest microhardness values. Light-curing TET with Valo resulted in higher microhardness compared to when using the Demi Ultra. Confocal and SEM images show that toothbrushing resulted in smoother surfaces for FBF and TET. All composites exhibited surface volume loss after toothbrushing. The loss in volume of SDR depended on the light-curing unit used. Toothbrushing can alter the surface roughness and superficial aspect of some bulk-fill composites. The choice of light-curing unit did not affect the roughness profile, but, depending on the composite, it affected the microhardness.
刷牙的影响可能会波及复合树脂修复体的长期美学效果。本研究评估了两种不同发射光谱的光固化灯对体外刷牙后大块充填复合树脂的表面粗糙度、粗糙度轮廓、形貌及显微硬度的影响。分别使用Valo（多峰）和Demi Ultra（单峰）固化灯照射10秒，以聚合三种大块充填树脂复合材料：Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative（FBF）、Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill（TET）和Surefil SDR Flow（SDR）。在刷牙机中进行30000次往复刷动后，检测粗糙度轮廓、表面粗糙度、表面形态及显微硬度。还获取了代表性的扫描电子显微镜（SEM）图像。与其他复合材料相比，用Demi Ultra光固化时，SDR的体积损失最大，且与用Valo光固化时相比体积损失更高。对于所测试的两种光固化灯，刷牙后SDR的表面粗糙度和粗糙度轮廓值最高。FBF的显微硬度值始终最大。与使用Demi Ultra相比，用Valo光固化TET时显微硬度更高。共聚焦显微镜和SEM图像显示，刷牙使FBF和TET的表面更光滑。所有复合材料在刷牙后均出现表面体积损失。SDR的体积损失取决于所使用的光固化灯。刷牙会改变一些大块充填复合材料的表面粗糙度和外观。光固化灯的选择不影响粗糙度轮廓，但根据复合材料的不同，会影响显微硬度。
