Stabile Victor Martins, Colombino Ana Caroline Lima, Emídio Andrey Gonçalves, Correr-Sobrinho Lourenço, Alonso Roberta Caroline Bruschi, Puppin-Rontani Regina Maria
Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Av. Prof. Lineu Prestes 2227, São Paulo, SP, 05508-000, Brazil.
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Dental Materials Division, Piracicaba Dental School, State University of Campinas, 901 Limeira Avenue, Piracicaba, SP, 13414-903, Brazil.
Clin Oral Investig. 2025 Aug 28;29(9):424. doi: 10.1007/s00784-025-06494-z.
To evaluate the effects of commercially charcoal-based dentifrices on the surface roughness and gloss retention of glazed lithium disilicate glass-ceramics subjected to simulated toothbrushing.
Seventy-two glazed lithium disilicate specimens (IPS e.max CAD) were randomly assigned to three dentifrice groups (n = 24): two charcoal-based (Carvvo (CVV), Curaprox Black is White (CBW)) and one conventional (Colgate Total 12 (C12)), the control. Toothbrushing simulations were performed for 5,000, 10,000, and 20,000 cycles. Roughness (Ra) and gloss (GU) were measured at baseline and after each cycle. Surface characterization was performed using three-dimensional profilometry and scanning electron microscopy (SEM), which also analyzed abrasive particles. Data were analyzed using two-way repeated measures ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc test (α = 0.05).
Roughness was affected only by dentifrice type (p = 0.004), with CVV producing higher mean values than C12, and CBW not differing from the others. Brushing cycle (p = 0.164) and interaction (p = 0.095) were non-significant. Gloss was affected by dentifrice (p < 0.001), brushing cycle (p < 0.001), and their interaction (p < 0.001). Charcoal-based dentifrices caused gloss reductions (CVV: 80.77GU baseline to 67.41GU at 20,000 cycles; CBW: 86.39GU baseline to 69.62GU at 20,000 cycles). In contrast, C12 increased gloss, reaching up to 95.97GU at 20,000 cycles.
Charcoal-based dentifrices significantly compromise the surface integrity of glazed lithium disilicate ceramics by increasing roughness and reducing gloss. Conventional dentifrices demonstrate no deleterious effect on ceramic surfaces and may even enhance gloss.
Routine use of charcoal-based dentifrices may accelerate surface wear and reduce optical properties of ceramic restorations, potentially compromising longevity and esthetic outcomes.
评估市售炭基牙膏对模拟刷牙后的玻璃陶瓷表面粗糙度和光泽保持的影响。
将72个玻璃陶瓷(IPS e.max CAD)随机分为三组(n = 24):两组炭基牙膏(Carvvo(CVV)、Curaprox Black is White(CBW))和一组传统牙膏(高露洁全效12(C12),作为对照)。进行5000、10000和20000次刷牙模拟循环。在基线和每个循环后测量粗糙度(Ra)和光泽度(GU)。使用三维轮廓仪和扫描电子显微镜(SEM)进行表面表征,SEM还分析了磨料颗粒。数据采用双向重复测量方差分析和Tukey事后检验(α = 0.05)进行分析。
粗糙度仅受牙膏类型影响(p = 0.004),CVV的平均值高于C12,CBW与其他组无差异。刷牙循环次数(p = 0.164)和交互作用(p = 0.095)无统计学意义。光泽度受牙膏(p < 0.001)、刷牙循环次数(p < 0.001)及其交互作用(p < 0.001)影响。炭基牙膏导致光泽度降低(CVV:基线80.77GU,20000次循环后为67.41GU;CBW:基线86.39GU,20000次循环后为69.62GU)。相比之下,C12增加了光泽度,在20000次循环时达到95.97GU。
炭基牙膏通过增加粗糙度和降低光泽度显著损害了玻璃陶瓷的表面完整性。传统牙膏对陶瓷表面无有害影响,甚至可能增加光泽度。
日常使用炭基牙膏可能会加速陶瓷修复体的表面磨损并降低其光学性能,可能会影响修复体的使用寿命和美观效果。