Comparative Evaluation of Surface Roughness of Resin- Modified Glass Ionomer and Glass Hybrid Restorative Materials Simulated by Tooth Brushing: An in-Vitro Study

Divya Rao  Komandla; Shashi Rashmi  Acharya; Kalyana Chakravarthy  Pentapati

Authors

Divya Rao Komandla
Shashi Rashmi Acharya
Kalyana Chakravarthy Pentapati

Keywords:

Dental Materials, Glass Ionomer Cements, Microscopy, Atomic Force

Abstract

Objective: To compare the effect of tooth brushing on surface roughness of Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement (RMGIC; GC Gold label 2LC Light Cured Universal Restorative) and Glass Hybrid (GH; GC EQUIA SYSTEM- EQUIA Forte™ Fil and EQUIA Forte™ Coat) restorative material at 1- and 3-months interval simulated by tooth brushing. Material and Methods: RMGIC and GH material specimens (20 each) were prepared according to manufacturer instructions in 10 mm × 2 mm dimensions using a mylar strip. A specially designed toothbrush simulator was used along with Oral B Pro 2 2000N powered toothbrush and Colgate Total dentifrice (Colgate-Palmolive India limited; Relative dentin abrasivity - RDA: 70 - Low abrasive) to perform brushing strokes. Specimens were subjected to surface roughness analysis before and after simulated tooth brushing at baseline, 1, and 3 months. Results: The intragroup comparison was done using repeated-measures ANOVA. Intergroup comparisons were done using an independent sample t-test and General Linear Model (ANCOVA). Surface roughness increased from baseline through 3 months in both RMGIC and GH groups. The mean surface roughness in RMGIC group was significantly higher than GH group at baseline 1 and 3-months, respectively (p<0.001, <0.001, and <0.001). Interaction between group and baseline surface roughness was not significant (p=0.466). The estimated marginal means were significantly higher in RMGIC than GH group (p=0.008). Conclusion: The surface roughness of both RMGIC and GH restorative increased from baseline to 1 month and 3 months after the simulated toothbrushing protocol. GH exhibited significantly lower surface roughness than RMGIC at all the tested intervals.

References

Bader JD, McClure F, Scurria MS, Shugars DA, Heymann HO. Case-control study of non-carious cervical lesions. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1996; 24(4):286-91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.1996.tb00861.x

Maneenut C, Tyas MJ. Clinical evaluation of resin-modified glass-ionomer restorative cements in cervical “abrasion” lesions: one-year results. Quintessence Int 1995; 26(10):739-43.

Neo J, Chew CL, Yap A, Sidhu S. Clinical evaluation of tooth-colored materials in cervical lesions. Am J Dent 1996; 9(1):15-8.

Loguercio AD, Reis A, Barbosa AN, Roulet JF. Five-year double-blind randomized clinical evaluation of a resin-modified glass ionomer and a polyacid-modified resin in noncarious cervical lesions. J Adhes Dent 2003; 5(4):323-32.

van Dijken JW V, Pallesen U. Long-term dentin retention of etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesives and a resin-modified glass ionomer cement in non-carious cervical lesions. Dent Mater 2008; 24(7):915-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2007.11.008

Bollen CM, 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(4):258-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0109-5641(97)80038-3

Lu H, Roeder LB, Lei L, Powers JM. Effect of surface roughness on stain resistance of dental resin composites. J Esthet Restor Dent 2005; 17(2):102-8; discussion 109. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.2005.tb00094.x

Cunha LG, Alonso RCB, Santos PH Dos, Sinhoreti MAC. Comparative study of the surface roughness of Ormocer-based and conventional composites. J Appl Oral Sci 2003; 11(4):348-53. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1678-77572003000400014

Garcia FCP, Wang L, D’Alpino PHP, Souza JB de, Araújo PA De, Mondelli RF de L. Evaluation of the roughness and mass loss of the flowable composites after simulated toothbrushing abrasion. Braz Oral Res 2004; 18(2):156-61. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1806-83242004000200012

Wang L, Garcia FCP, Amarante de Araujo P, Franco EB, Mondelli RFL. Wear resistance of packable resin composites after simulated toothbrushing test. J Esthet Restor Dent 2004; 16(5):303-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.2004.tb00058.x

Prakki A, Cilli R, Mondelli RFL, Kalachandra S. In vitro wear, surface roughness and hardness of propanal-containing and diacetyl-containing novel composites and copolymers based on bis-GMA analogs. Dent Mater 2008; 24(3):410-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.DENTAL.2007.06.011

Cilli R, de Mattos MCR, Honorio HM, Rios D, de Araujo PA, Prakki A. The role of surface sealants in the roughness of composites after a simulated toothbrushing test. J Dent 2009; 37(12):970-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2009.08.002

Dudás C, Forgó Z, Kerekes-máthé B. Surface Roughness changes of different restoration materials after tooth brushing simulation using different toothpastes. J Interdiscip Med 2017; 2:21-4. https://doi.org/10.1515/jim-2017-0012

Pacifici E, Bossù M, Giovannetti A, La Torre G, Guerra F, Polimeni A. Surface roughness of glass ionomer cements indicated for uncooperative patients according to surface protection treatment. Ann Stomatol 2014; 4(3-4):250-8.

Bezgin T, Ozer L, Tulga Oz F, Ozkan P. Effect of toothbrushing on color changes of esthetic restorative materials. J Esthet Restor Dent 2015; 27(Suppl 1):S65-73. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12136

Frazier KB, Rueggeberg FA, Mettenburg DJ. Comparison of wear-resistance of Class V restorative materials. J Esthet Dent 1998; 10(6):309-14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.1998.tb00509.x

Franco EB, Benetti AR, Ishikiriama SK, Santiago SL, Lauris JRP, Jorge MFF, et al. 5-year clinical performance of resin composite versus resin modified glass ionomer restorative system in non-carious cervical lesions. Oper Dent 2006; 31(4):403-8. https://doi.org/10.2341/05-87

Brackett MG, Dib A, Brackett WW, Estrada BE, Reyes AA. One-year clinical performance of a resin-modified glass ionomer and a resin composite restorative material in unprepared Class V restorations. Oper Dent 2002; 27(2):112-6.

Heath JR, Wilson HJ. Abrasion of restorative materials by toothpaste. J Oral Rehabil 1976; 3(2):121-38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1976.tb00936.x

Sidhu SK, Sherriff M, Watson TF. In vivo changes in roughness of resin-modified glass ionomer materials. Dent Mater 1997; 13(3):208-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(97)80028-0

Wilson AD, Kent BE. A new translucent cement for dentistry. The glass ionomer cement. Br Dent J 1972; 132(4):133-5. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4802810

Mallya PL, Acharya S, Ballal V, Kundabala M, Thomas M. Profilometric study to compare the effectiveness of various finishing and polishing techniques on different restorative glass ionomer cements. J Interdiscip. Dent 2013; 3(2):86-90. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-5194.126867

Lohbauer U, Kramer N, Siedschlag G, Schubert EW, Lauerer B, Muller FA, et al. Strength and wear resistance of a dental glass-ionomer cement with a novel nanofilled resin coating. Am J Dent 2011; 24(2):124-8.

Hajilou S, Zajkani E, Naghili A. Effect of a resin coating material on the microleakage of class v restorations with or without post-operative bleaching. Pesqui Bras Odontopediatria Clin Integr 2020; 20:1-8. https://doi.org/10.1590/pboci.2020.121

Dionysopoulos D, Dionyssopoulos P. Surface finish produced on 5 aesthetic restorative materials by new polishing systems. Balk J Stomatol 2012; 16(1):27-33.

Uppal M, Ganesh A, Balagopal S, Kaur G. Profilometric analysis of two composite resins′ surface repolished after tooth brush abrasion with three polishing systems. J Conserv Dent 2013; 16(4):309. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.114356

Moshaverinia M, Navas A, Jahedmanesh N, Shah KC, Moshaverinia A, Ansari S. Comparative evaluation of the physical properties of a reinforced glass ionomer dental restorative material. J Prosthet Dent 2019; 122(2):154-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.03.012