ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Year : 2016 | Volume : 19 | Issue : 1 | Page : 51--55

Surface roughness and erosion of nanohybrid and nanofilled resin composites after immersion in red and white wine

Saijai Tantanuch1, Boonlert Kukiattrakoon1, Thanwalee Peerasukprasert2, Nilobon Chanmanee2, Parnchanok Chaisomboonphun2, Apisara Rodklai2,
1
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Dental Materials Research Unit, Faculty of Dentistry, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Songkhla, Thailand
2
Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Songkhla, Thailand

Correspondence Address:
Boonlert Kukiattrakoon
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Dental Materials Research Unit, Faculty of Dentistry, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Songkhla
Thailand

Abstract

Aims: This study aimed to investigate the effects of red and white wine on the surface roughness and erosion of nanohybrid and nanofilled resin composites. Materials
and Methods: Sixty specimens of each resin-based composite (RBC) were prepared. Before immersion, baseline data roughness values were recorded using a
profilometer. Three groups of discs (n = 20) were then alternately immersed in red wine, white wine, and deionized water (as a control) for 25 min and artificial saliva for
5 min over four cycles. The specimens were then stored in artificial saliva for 22 h. This process was repeated for 5 days following immersion in artificial saliva for 2
days. Subsequently, the process was repeated. After immersion, the specimens were evaluated and data were analyzed by two-way repeated analysis of variance
(ANOVA) and TukeySQs honestly significant difference (HSD) ( = 0.05). Results: Red wine caused significantly greater roughness and erosion than did white wine
and deionized water (P < 0.05). Nanohybrid resin composites were significantly rougher than nanofilled resin composites (P < 0.05). Conclusion: The effects of red and
white wine on the surface roughness and erosion of resin composite restorative materials depended upon the physical and chemical composition of the restorative
materials and the types of wine.

How to cite this article:

Tantanuch S, Kukiattrakoon B, Peerasukprasert T, Chanmanee N, Chaisomboonphun P, Rodklai A. Surface roughness and erosion of nanohybrid and nanofilled resin
composites after immersion in red and white wine.J Conserv Dent 2016;19:51-55

How to cite this URL:

Tantanuch S, Kukiattrakoon B, Peerasukprasert T, Chanmanee N, Chaisomboonphun P, Rodklai A. Surface roughness and erosion of nanohybrid and nanofilled resin
composites after immersion in red and white wine. J Conserv Dent [serial online] 2016 [cited 2017 Sep 23 ];19:51-55
Available from: http://www.jcd.org.in/text.asp?2016/19/1/51/173199

Full Text

INTRODUCTION

Over the past 3-4 years, wine consumption has dramatically increased across most markets and wine sectors. There are many people who drink wine between meals or in
social drinking. Several studies showed that wine tasters have dental erosion due to the frequency of tasting wine and that erosion is related to the acidity of wine. [1]
Additionally, drinking wine may affect the esthetic and physical properties of resin-based composite (RBC) restorations. [2]

Currently, RBCs are widely used in esthetic restorative dentistry. Nanocomposites are the latest types of RBCs. Nanocomposites are occur in two subtypes, nanofilled
and nanohybrid. They are becoming very popular in esthetic restorative dentistry because of the many advantages of their material compositions, in terms of the physical
and mechanical properties, and they are widely used in restoring both anterior and posterior teeth. [3],[4] Nanofilled RBCs contain nanomers and nanoclusters. The
particle size of nanomers is in the range of 5-75 nm. Nanoclusters are 0.6-1.4 m and they are agglomerates of primary zirconia/silica nanoparticles (5-20 nm in size)
fused together at points of contact, and the resulting porous structure is infiltrated with silane. [4] Nanohybrid RBCs consist of nanoparticles (40-50 nm) and milled glass
fillers. [3]

The longevity of the materials used is one of the main factors for the success of esthetic restoration. Surface roughness may be one of the factors used to predict the
longevity of the restoration due to surface degradation and erosive properties. [5] Alcohol composition in wine may affect the esthetic and physical properties of the RBC
restorations [2] because alcohol is also thought to act as a plasticizer of the polymer matrix. [6] When RBC restorations are eroded, the teeth may sustain loss of anatomy,
marginal discrepancy of restoration, secondary caries, [7] and an increase in the surface roughness of restorations. Surface roughness of restoration results in plaque and
staining deposits at restoration, tissue irritation, possible gingivitis, [8] and reduced longevity of restorations. [9],[10]

There are a number of studies presenting the erosive effects of wine on tooth structure, [1],[11],[12] and red wine on microhybrid and nanofilled resin composites,
[13],[14],[15] but only a few studies reported the effects of wine on the surface roughness and erosion of nanofilled and nanohybrid RBCs. Therefore, the objective of
this in vitro study was to investigate the effects of red and white wine on the surface roughness and erosion of nanofilled and nanohybrid RBCs, and to investigate the pH
and titratable acidity of different beverages. The null hypothesis was that there would be no surface roughness and erosion difference between the nanohybrid and
nanofilled resin composites after the immersion period in red wine and white wine.

Materials and Methods

Specimen preparations

A total of 60 disc-shaped specimens of nanohybrid and nanofilled resin composites [shade A2, [Table 1] were prepared (10.0 mm in diameter and 2.0 mm in thickness) in
a polytetrafluoroethylene cylindrical mold on a glass plate. The cylindrical mold was covered with a mylar matrix strip. A second glass plate was then placed over the
mylar strip. A static load of approximately 200 g was applied to extrude excess resin composites and to obtain a smooth and flat surface on each specimen. The
specimens were then polymerized for 40 s with a light-activated polymerization unit (Elipar 2500, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA). The light intensity was verified with a
measuring device (Cure Rite, L.D. Caulk, Milford, DE, USA). After polymerization, the mylar strip and the glass plate on the top and bottom of the mold were removed,
and the specimen was then removed from the cylindrical mold. No mechanical preparation or abrasions of the specimens were performed.{Table 1}

The pH measurements

Red and white wine were used in this study; their compositions are shown in [Table 2]. The pH of each wine was determined using a pH meter (Orion 900A, Orion
Research, Boston, MA, USA). Ten pH readings of each beverage were obtained so as to give a mean pH measurement.{Table 2}

Storage agent immersions and surface roughness measurements

Sixty discs of nanohybrid and nanofilled resin composites were divided into three groups of 20 specimens for immersion in red wine, white wine, and deionized water
(serving as a control), respectively. Each group was subjected to a surface roughness measurement for baseline data (before immersion). Surface roughness
determinations were measured by a profilometer (Surfcorder model SE-2300, Kosaka Laboratory Ltd., Tokyo, Japan). The cutoff value for surface roughness was 0.8 mm
and the traversing distance of the stylus was 4 mm. The radius of the tracing diamond tip was 5 m, and the measuring force and speed were 4 mN and 0.5 m/s,
respectively. The surface roughness values (Ra, the arithmetical average of surface heights, for surface roughness and Rmax, the magnitude of the peak-to-valley height
in all cutoff lengths, for erosion measurement [16] ) of each specimen were obtained in five different positions (1.5 mm apart), each before and after immersion in the
storage agents.

The specimens were then alternately immersed in 25 mL of a storage agent for 25 min and in 25 mL of artificial saliva for 5 min conducted over four cycles at room
temperature (about 25C). [17] After the cyclic immersion, specimens were returned to the artificial saliva (changed daily) and kept overnight at 37C. This process was
repeated for 5 days following immersion in artificial saliva for 2 days (1 trip). Subsequently, the entire process was repeated again (for a total of 2 trips). After immersion,
specimens were evaluated (on day 7 for 1 trip and day 14 for 2 trips). The same protocol was used with the different storage agents in this study. In order to maintain the
original pH level of the storage agents, the agents were refreshed daily throughout the experiment. After the immersion sequence was completed, the specimens were
rinsed with deionized water, blotted dry against filter paper, and subjected to postimmersion surface roughness measurement.

Statistical analysis

The surface roughness and erosion values were subjected to two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's honestly significant difference (HSD) for multiple
comparisons (at = 0.05).

RESULTS

White wine had the lowest pH (2.97 0.02) and red wine had the highest pH (3.32 0.02). The surface roughness and erosion values of the materials used before and
after immersion are presented in [Figure 1] and [Figure 2]. Overall, red wine caused significantly rougher surfaces than did white wine and deionized water (P < 0.05).
Nanohybrid RBCs were significantly rougher than nanofilled RBCs (P < 0.05).{Figure 1}{Figure 2}

DISCUSSION

On the basis of the data, the null hypothesis of this present study should be rejected. This study showed that after being soaked in red and white wines, the surface
roughness (Ra) and erosion (Rmax) of all groups significantly increased, which is similar to a previous study. [18]

With the demand for esthetic restorations and the improvement of RBCs, nanohybrid and nanofilled RBCs have become very popular choices for restoration. However,
there are limitations on the longevity of the esthetic restoration. [5] The surface roughness and erosion of materials also play an important role in replacement in esthetic
areas.

This study indicated that wine's acidity has a pH ranging 2.97-3.32, which is similar to a previous study. [19] The types of wine used contained 1-5 g/L tartaric acid,1-4
g/L maleic acid and other acids including succinic acid, lactic acid, citric acid, and acetic acid. [20] There are a number of studies that have reported that acids might
change the physical properties of RBCs under acidic conditions over time. In one study, RBCs presented a surface roughness with voids which showed that the acidity
might have had a greater softening effect on the resin matrix or hydrolysis of the silane coupling agent and could promote dislodgement of filler particles, resulting in
facilitating the erosion of RBCs. [21],[22]

Red wine used in this study contained 13.5% alcohol by volume, while white wine contained 12.5% alcohol by volume. Alcohol in beverages causes significant increases
in surface roughness and erosion in resin composite because alcohol is also thought to act as a plasticizer of the polymer matrix to soften and dislodge filler particles,
resulting in a rapid increase in surface roughness and erosion. [6],[18],[23] The softening effect of alcohol on the RBCs may be due to the susceptibility of bisphenol A-
glycidyl methacrylate (Bis-GMA) and urethane dimethacrylate (UDMA)-based polymers. [24] This study showed that after soaking the specimens in red wine, the
surface roughness and erosion of all groups significantly increased more than for white wine because red wine has a higher ethanol concentration (13.5 vol%) than white
wine (12.5 vol%). This result corresponds to the results of previous studies [13],[14],[15] that evaluated the effect of red wine on microhybrid and nanofilled resin
composites.

In addition, water absorption of the RBCs was an important factor in changing the surface roughness and erosion of RBCs. [25] When RBCs absorb water, a coupling
agent causes hydrolysis and a loss of chemical bonding between filler particles and the resin matrix. Filler particles dislodge from the outer surface of the RBCs, causing
the surface to become rougher and erode. [26] The types of resin matrix in RBCs are also influenced by the water absorption of RBCs. Soderholm et al. [27] reported that
Bis-GMA absorbs less water than the resin made by triethylene glycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA), but absorbs more water than the resins made by UDMA and Bis-
EMA. RBCs used in this study showed that nanohybrid resin composites composed of TEGDMA, while nanofilled resin composite (Filtek Z350 XT) did not.

The filler particle size has been correlated to the surface roughness and erosion of RBCs. Large filler particles will have rougher surfaces than smaller filler particles.
[28],[29],[30] The RBCs used in this study were Filtek Z350 XT (nanofilled resin composite), which have an average filler particle size 0.005-0.02 microns smaller than
the nanohybrid resin composites (Estelite Sigma Quick 0.2 micron, Premise 0.4 micron, and Herculite Ultra 0.4 micron). The results of this study showed that nanohybrid
resin composites presented greater surface roughness and erosion than nanofilled resin composites after immersion in red wine and white wine.

The results of this study showed that the alcohol composition in wine may affect the surface roughness and erosion of nanocomposites. However, this study evaluated
only in vitro effects, with some limitations. The dilution effects of saliva, including the pH change in the oral cavity, should also be considered. Therefore, further studies
are required to examine the effects of wines in vivo.
CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of this study, the following conclusions could be drawn. Red and white wine significantly increased the surface roughness and erosion of nanofilled
and nanohybrid resin composites after evaluation at the end of the 14 days' immersion period. The effects of red and white wine on the surface roughness and erosion of
resin composite restorative materials depend upon the physical and chemical composition of the restorative materials and the types of wine.

Financial support and sponsorship

Faculty of Dentistry research fund, Prince of Songkla University.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

References

1 Lupi-Peguruer L, Muller M, Leforestier E, Bertrand MF, Bolla M. In vitro action of Bordeaux red wine on the microhardness of human dental enamel. Arch Oral
Biol 2003;48:141-5.
2 Dietschi D, Campanile G, Holz J, Meyer JM. Comparison of the color stability of ten new-generation composites: An in vitro study. Dent Mater 1994;10:353-62.
3 Mitra SB, Wu D, Holmes BN. An application of nanotechnology in advanced dental materials. J Am Dent Assoc 2003;134:1382-90.
4 Moszner N, Klapdohr S. Nanotechnology for dental composites. Int J Nanotechnol 2004;1:130-56.
5 Wu SS, Yap AU, Chelvan S, Tan ES. Effect of prophylaxis regimens on surface roughness of glass ionomer cements. Oper Dent 2005;30:180-4.
6 Ferracane JL, Marker VA. Solvent degradation and reduced fracture toughness in aged composites. J Dent Res 1992;71:13-9.
7 Yap AU, Wu SS, Chelven S, Tan ES. Effect of hygiene maintenance procedures on surface roughness of composite restoratives. Oper Dent 2005;30:99-104.
8 Quirynen M. The clinical meaning of the surface roughness and the surface free energy of intra-oral hard substrata on the microbiology of the supra- and
subgingival plaque: Results of in vitro and in vivo experiments. J Dent 1994;22(Suppl 1):S13-6.
9 Dunkin RT, Chambers DW. Gingival response to class V composite resin restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 1983;106:482-4.
10 Chan KC, Fuller JL, Hormati AA. The ability of foods to stain two composite resins. J Prosthet Dent 1980;43:542-5.
11 Mandel L. Dental erosion due to wine consumption. J Am Dent Assoc 2005;136:71-5.
12 Meurman JH, Vesterinen M. Wine, alcohol, and oral health, with special emphasis on dental erosion. Quintessence Int 2000;31:729-33.
13 Lepri CP, Palma-Dibb RG. Surface roughness and color change of a composite: Influence of beverages and brushing. Dent Mat J 2012;31:689-96.
14 de Alencar E Silva Leite ML, da Cunha Medeiros E Silva FD, Meireles SS, Duarte RM, Andrade AK. The effect of drinks on color stability and surface
roughness of nanocomposites. Eur J Dent 2014;8:330-6.
15 Bansal K, Acharya SR, Saraswathi V. Effect of alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages on color stability and surface roughness of resin composites: An in vitro
study. J Conserv Dent 2012;15:283-8.
16 Stout KJ. Surface roughness: Measurement, interpretation and significance of data. Mater Eng 1981;2:260-5.
17 Wongkhantee S, Patanapiradej V, Maneenut C, Tantbirojn D. Effect of acidic food and drinks on surface hardness of enamel, dentine, and tooth-coloured filling
materials. J Dent 2006;34:214-20.
18 Sarrett DC, Coletti DP, Peluso AR. The effects of alcoholic beverages on composite wear. Dent Mater 2000;16:62-7.
19 Gray A, Ferguson MM, Wall JG. Wine tasting and dental erosion. Case report. Aust Dent J 1998;43:32-4.
20 Hernndez-Orte P, Cacho JF, Ferreira V. Relationship between varietal amino acid profile of grapes and wine aromatic composition. Experiments with model
solutions and chemometric study. J Agric Food Chem 2002;50:2891-9.
21 Munchow EA, Ferreira AC, Machado RM, Ramos TS, Rodrigues-Junior SA, Zanchi CH. Effect of acidic solutions on the surface degradation of a micro-hybrid
composite resin. Braz Dent J 2014;25: 321-6.
22 Reddy PS, Tejaswi KL, Shetty S, Annapoorna BM, Pujari SC, Thippenswamy HM. Effects of commonly consumed beverages on surface roughness and color
stability of the nano, microhybrid and hybrid composite resins: An in vitro study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013;14:718-23.
23 Ahmed KI, Sajjan G. Color stability of ionomer and resin composite restoratives in various environmental solutions: An in vitro reflection spectrophotometric
study. J Conserv Dent 2005;8:45-51.
24 Kao EC. Influence of food stimulating solvents on resin composites and glass ionomer restorative cement. Dent Mater 1989;5:201-8.
25 Martin N, Jedynakiewicz N. Measurement of water sorption in dental composites. Biomaterials 1998;19:77-83.
26 Wilson F, Heath JR, Watts DC. Finishing composite restorative materials. J Oral Rehabil 1990;17:79-87.
27 Sderholm KJ, Zigan M, Ragan M, Fischlschweiger W, Bergman M. Hydrolytic degradation of dental composites. J Dent Res 1984;63: 1248-54.
28 Poggio C, Dagna A, Chiesa M, Colombo M, Scribante A. Surface roughness of flowable resin composites eroded by acidic and alcoholic drinks. J Conserv Dent
2012;15:137-40.
29 Heintze SD, Forjanic M. Surface roughness of different dental materials before and after simulated toothbrushing in vitro. Oper Dent 2005;30: 617-26.
30 Jones CS, Billington RW, Pearson GJ. The in vivo perception of roughness of restorations. Br Dent J 2004;196:42-5;discussion 31.

Saturday, September 23, 2017

Site Map | Home | Contact Us | Feedback | Copyright and Disclaimer