• Lc, Levy
• Law, V.
• Br, Morrow
• Garcia-Godoy, F.

Abstract

<h4>Purpose</h4>To evaluate the laboratory long-term effect of various whitening dentifrices on the surface roughness of two brands of resin composite (TPH ST, Filtek Bulk Fill One) using a mechanical toothbrushing simulation.<h4>Methods</h4>Thirty-two samples each of Filtek and TPH were fabricated in ring molds 10 x 1 mm. Samples were randomly grouped (n=8; four groups), according to dentifrice used; Crest 3D, Optic White, Hello (charcoal), and Aim as control. Samples were brushed in mixed solutions containing deionized water and dentifrice at 150 gf for 10,000x with rotation to ensure uniform brushing. Surface roughness was measured both before (baseline) and after the mechanical toothbrushing simulation using a stylus profilometer. Data collected was compared independently for each treatment using two-way ANOVA and SNK with α< 0.05 for significance.<h4>Results</h4>The data showed that TPH was more susceptible to the abrasive nature of three of the whitening dentifrices tested [Crest 3D, Optic White, and Hello (charcoal) ]. Filtek also exhibited significant susceptibility to the abrasive nature of Hello. Aim showed the least or minimal amount of abrasion.<h4>Clinical significance</h4>TPH ST composite was more susceptible to the abrasive nature of the three whitening dentifrices tested [Crest 3D, Optic White, and Hello (charcoal)]. Filtek also exhibited significant susceptibility to the abrasive nature of Hello. Aside from the data supporting the clinical efficacy of TPH compared to Filtek, clinicians should inform patients of the abrasive capacity of all whitening dentifrices, especially those that are charcoal based.

Topics

• surface
• simulation
• composite
• resin
• susceptibility