Effect of erosive challenge with HCl on restorative materials.

Autor: Willers AE; Operative Dentistry Division, Department of Restorative Dentistry, State University of Campinas, Piracicaba Dental School, 901 Limeira Avenue, Piracicaba, São Paulo, 13414-903, Brazil. amanda.willers@gmail.com., Branco TB; Operative Dentistry Division, Department of Restorative Dentistry, State University of Campinas, Piracicaba Dental School, 901 Limeira Avenue, Piracicaba, São Paulo, 13414-903, Brazil., Sahadi BO; Operative Dentistry Division, Department of Restorative Dentistry, State University of Campinas, Piracicaba Dental School, 901 Limeira Avenue, Piracicaba, São Paulo, 13414-903, Brazil., Faraoni JJ; Department of Restorative Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil., Dibb RGP; Department of Restorative Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil., Giannini M; Operative Dentistry Division, Department of Restorative Dentistry, State University of Campinas, Piracicaba Dental School, 901 Limeira Avenue, Piracicaba, São Paulo, 13414-903, Brazil.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Clinical oral investigations [Clin Oral Investig] 2022 Aug; Vol. 26 (8), pp. 5189-5203. Date of Electronic Publication: 2022 Apr 20.
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-022-04487-w
Abstrakt: Objective: Investigate the effect of erosive challenge with hydrochloric acid (HCl) on the surface of five different restorative materials.
Material and Methods: Ten plates of five restorative materials (Admira Fusion, Activa BioActive-Restorative, Charisma, Equia Forte HT Fil/EF, Filtek Universal Restorative/FU) were obtained. Half of the plate surfaces was covered with an adhesive tape, creating a control area, and the other side was submitted to the HCl (0.06 M HCl; pH 1.2; at 37 °C; for 30 h). Plates with control and HCl-treated areas were analyzed regarding the surface roughness (Sa), roughness profile (Rv), surface loss (SL), microhardness (MI), and gloss (GL) (n = 10). Surface morphology was analyzed by SEM and chemical elements were identified by EDX (n = 5). Data were evaluated by ANOVA and Tukey's test (α = 0.05).
Results: Most materials were not affected by HCl. FU showed the lowest Sa and Rv, and the highest GL after HCl. On the other hand, EF presented the highest Sa, Rv, and SL, and the lowest GL. The MI of materials was not changed after HCl. Topographical and chemical alterations were observed after HCl only for EF.
Conclusions: The composites showed minor surface changes after HCl, which was not observed for the glass ionomer cement (EF). FU presented the best performance regarding the parameters evaluated.
Clinical Relevance: The effects of erosive challenge with HCl on composites were minimal, while the glass ionomer cements might not be indicated as restorative material for patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease.
(© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: