Abstract
Statement of problem
Chairside computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) materials
that do not require any firing steps are a promising option to expedite restoration
production; however, little information is available to determine the most suitable
material for each clinical situation.
Purpose
The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of simulated toothbrushing
on surface gloss, roughness, and wear of chairside CAD-CAM materials.
Material and methods
Disk-shaped specimens (n=15) were prepared of the following materials: ENA—VITA Enamic;
LAV—Lava Ultimate; EMP—IPS Empress CAD; CER—Cerasmart; GRA—Grandio blocs. Gloss (Gloss
Unit—GU) and surface roughness (Ra—μm) were evaluated before and after simulated toothbrushing
(100 000 strokes). Wear (μm) was assessed by contact profilometry. Additional analyses
of microhardness by scanning electron microscopy were also performed. Data were analyzed
with 2-way repeated measures ANOVA test for roughness and gloss, and 1-way ANOVA for
wear (α=.05). To estimate the correlation between Ra and GU, the Pearson correlation
was calculated.
Results
Before brushing, CER showed the lowest Ra (P<.001), and GRA the lowest GU values. After brushing, the feldspathic ceramic-based
materials (ENA and EMP) presented the highest gloss, whereas the ceramic group (EMP)
showed the lowest Ra. Before and after brushing, GRA showed the lowest GU values.
Higher wear values were found for the composite resin groups (CER>GRA), with the exception
of LAVA, which was similar to ENA, and EMP showing improved wear resistance. A strong
negative correlation (-0.925) between GU and Ra values was detected (P<.001).
Conclusions
The materials containing a glass phase (ENA and EMP) presented higher wear resistance,
higher gloss, and lower roughness after brushing than the other materials tested.
The correlation test showed that the higher the surface roughness, the lower the gloss.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Journal of Prosthetic DentistryAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Effect of artificial toothbrushing and water storage on the surface roughness and micromechanical properties of tooth-colored CAD-CAM materials.J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 117: 767-774
- Surface deterioration of dental materials after simulated toothbrushing in relation to brushing time and load.Dent Mater. 2010; 26: 306-319
- Wear characteristics of current aesthetic dental restorative CAD/CAM materials: two-body wear, gloss retention, roughness and Martens hardness.J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2013; 20: 113-125
- Inlays made from a hybrid material: adaptation and bond strengths.Oper Dent. 2015; 40: E83-E91
- Machinability of CAD-CAM materials.J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 118: 194-199
- 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: 258-269
- Effect of surface roughness on stain resistance of dental resin composites.J Esthet Restor Dent. 2005; 17 (discussion 109): 102-108
- Surface properties of resin-based composite materials and biofilm formation: a review of the current literature.Am J Dent. 2015; 28: 311-320
- Streptococcus mutans biofilm changes surface-topography of resin composites.Dent Mater. 2008; 24: 732-736
- Nanofilled bis-acryl composite resin materials: is it necessary to polish?.J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 124: 494.e1-494.e5
- Changes in gloss after simulated generalized wear of composite resins.J Prosthet Dent. 2005; 94: 370-376
- Toothbrushing alters the surface roughness and gloss of composite resin CAD/CAM blocks.Dent Mater J. 2016; 35: 225-232
- An application of nanotechnology in advanced dental materials.J Am Dent Assoc. 2003; 134: 1382-1390
- Perceptibility and acceptability of surface gloss variations in dentistry.Oper Dent. 2019; 45: 134-142
- Product review: polishing systems.American Dental Association, Chicago2010: 16
- Guidelines for submission of resin composite materials for posterior restorations.in: American Dental Association Council on dental materials, instruments and equipment. American Dental Association, Chicago1989: 649-651
- Effect of tooth brush abrasion and thermo-mechanical loading on direct and indirect veneer restorations.Clin Oral Investig. 2015; 19: 53-60
- Wear and microhardness of different resin composite materials.Oper Dent. 2003; 28: 628-634
- The effect of various dentifrices on surface roughness and gloss of resin composites.J Dent. 2010; 38: e123-e128
- Effect of a desensitizing paste containing 8% arginine and calcium carbonate on the surface roughness of dental materials and human dental enamel.Am J Dent. 2009; 22: 21A-24A
- Dental materials — guidance on testing of wear — part 1: wear by toothbrushing.International Organization for Standardization, Geneva2007: 5
- Materials science and engineering: an introduction.9th ed. John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey2013: 960
Article info
Publication history
Published online: December 02, 2020
Footnotes
Supported by São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP #2017/25849-0—third author scholarship), and by Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES—first author scholarship).
Identification
Copyright
© 2020 by the Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.
