Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Oper Dent. 2003 Nov-Dec;28(6):740-6.

Effect of mouthrinses on microhardness and wear of composite and compomer restoratives.

Author information

1
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, National University of Singapore, Republic of Singapore. rsdyapuj@nus.edu.sg

Abstract

This study investigated the effect of commercially available mouthrinses on the microhardness and wear of composite (Esthet-X, Dentsply) and compomer (Dyract Posterior, Dentsply) restoratives. Fifty-four hardness and 36 wear specimens of each material were fabricated and stored in distilled water at 37 degrees C for two weeks. The specimens were then randomly divided into six equal groups and exposed to the following solutions for 24 hours at 37 degrees C: distilled water [WC] (control); Listerine Original [AP] (alcohol-containing essential oil/phenolic compound mouthrinse); Colgate Chloropharm [AC] (alcohol-containing chlorhexidine mouthrinse); Oral B Tooth & Gum Care [AF] (alcohol-containing fluoride mouthrinse); Oral B Tooth & Gum Care Alcohol Free [OF] (alcohol free fluoride mouthrinse) and Oral B Sensitive [PF] (phosphoric acid containing fluoride mouthrinse). After conditioning, the specimens were subjected to hardness testing using a digital microhardness tester (load = 500 gf; dwell time = 15 seconds) and wear testing with a reciprocal compression-sliding system (contact stress = 20 MPa). Wear depth was measured every 1,000 cycles up to 10,000 cycles using profilometry. Data was analyzed using ANOVA/Scheffe's test at significance level 0.05. Dyract was significantly softened by AP, while Esthet-X was significantly softened by AC and AP. The wear resistance of Dyract was significantly reduced after exposure to PF, while the wear resistance of Esthet-X was significantly reduced by AC. The effect of mouthrinses on hardness and wear was material dependent.

PMID:
14653289
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Loading ...
Support Center