Effect of brushing on surface roughness, fluoride release, and biofilm formation with different tooth-colored materials
- PMID: 35028062
- PMCID: PMC8739752
- DOI: 10.1016/j.jds.2021.08.013
Effect of brushing on surface roughness, fluoride release, and biofilm formation with different tooth-colored materials
Abstract
Background/purpose: Tooth brushing, material mechanical ageing procedure, is the most effective way in removing biofilm. The purpose of this study was to investigate the surface roughness, fluoride-release, and S. mutans biofilm formation on various tooth-colored restorative materials before and after brushing.
Materials and methods: Discs of materials, a nanocomposite (Filtek Z350XT; CO), a giomer (Beautifil II; GIOMER), a resin-modified glass-ionomer material (Fuji II LC; RMGI), and a conventional glass-ionomer material (Fuji IX GP Extra; GI), were prepared, polished with abrasive discs (SofLex), and divided into brushed and not brushed groups. The surface roughness of specimens was observed using a contact profilometer, fluoride-release was measured using a fluoride-specific ion electrode, and S. mutans biofilm formation, biovolume and live/dead cells, was observed under a confocal laser scanning microscope.
Results: Higher roughness was observed on GI and RMGI than on CO and GIOMER. Brushing had no effect on the roughness. The fluoride-release of GI and RMGI was higher than that of GIOMER. The fluoride-release decreased after brushing in all materials. The biovolume of S. mutans was not significantly different between GIOMER, RMGI and GI, while CO showed the highest. Brushing resulted in a higher biovolume for all materials, except CO, which showed no change. After brushing, all the tested materials demonstrated identical biovolumes. There were no significant differences in live/dead cells among all groups.
Conclusion: Brushing demonstrated a negative effect on the fluoride-release and biovolume of S. mutans biofilms for all tested materials except nanocomposites.
Keywords: Biofilm formation; Brushing; Composite resin; Giomer; Glass-ionomer material.
© 2021 Association for Dental Sciences of the Republic of China. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors have no conflicts of interest relevant to this article.
Figures



References
-
- Attin T., Vataschki M., Hellwig F. Properties resin-modified glass-ionomer restorative materials and two polyacid-modified resin composite materials. Qnitessence Int. 1996;27:203–209. - PubMed
-
- Momoi Y., Hirosaki K., Kohno A., McCabe J.F. In vitro toothbrush-dentifrice abrasion of resin-modified glass ionomers. Dent Mater. 1997;13:82–88. - PubMed
-
- Asmussen E. Opacity of glass-ionomer cements. Acta Odentol Scand. 1983;41:155–157. - PubMed
-
- Cildir S.K., Sandalli N. Fluoride release/uptake of glass-ionomer cements and polyacid-modified composite resins. Dent Mater J. 2005;24:92–97. - PubMed
-
- Gladys S., Van Meerbeek B., Braem M., Lambrechts P., Vanherle G. Comparative physico-mechanical characterization of new hybrid restorative materials with conventional glass-ionomer and resin composite restorative materials. J Dent Res. 1997;76:883–894. - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Molecular Biology Databases