Article Data

  • Views 828
  • Dowloads 172

Original Research

Open Access

In Vitro Effect of Simulated Tooth Brushing and Children’s Mouth Rinses on Physical Properties of Glass Ionomer Cement

  • Natyla ML Silva1
  • Victor G Costa1
  • Letícia M Gonçalves2
  • Isabella A Gomes 1
  • Marco Aurélio B Paschoal3,*,

1Dental School, Universidade CEUMA, São Luis, Brazil

2Department of Dentistry I, Federal University of Maranhão – UFMA, São Luis, Brazil

3Department of Child and Adolescent Oral Health, Federal University of Minas Gerais – UFMG, Belo Horizonte, Brazil

DOI: 10.17796/1053-4625-44.5.8 Vol.44,Issue 5,September 2020 pp.342-347

Published: 01 September 2020

*Corresponding Author(s): Marco Aurélio B Paschoal E-mail: marcobpaschoal@hotmail.com

Abstract

Objective: The present study investigated the erosive potential of children’s mouthrinses on glass ionomer cement (GIC) samples after simulated toothbrushing. Study design: Forty round-shaped samples of GIC were divided into 3 groups: G1- cetylpyridinium chloride, G2- xylitol and triclosan and G3–Malva sylvestris and xylitol and G4–distilled water as a control group. Prior to the main tests, the samples were submitted to the surface roughness measurement (Ra) and weight analysis (W). Afterward, they were brushed twice day (2x / day) for 15 days and immersed in mouthrinses after the last daily brushing. The final surface roughness (R2) and weight (W2) were determined after completing the tooth brushing-mouth rinsing cycles and the real increase in roughness (∆Ra) and real weight loss (∆W) were calculated. In addition, stereoscopic images taken at 30X magnification. The data was analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey-test post hoc tests for intergroup comparison and the T-test for dependent samples (α = 0.05). Results: Only group G2 showed increased in roughness ΔRa (1.53 ± 0.94) whereas ∆W values were not significant. However, evident cracks and voids were verified for all tested children’s rinses. Conclusion: Thus, children’s mouthrinse containing xylitol / triclosan increased the GIC roughness, especially when associated with brushing.


Keywords

Abrasion; Mouthwash; GIC; Wear


Cite and Share

Natyla ML Silva,Victor G Costa,Letícia M Gonçalves,Isabella A Gomes ,Marco Aurélio B Paschoal. In Vitro Effect of Simulated Tooth Brushing and Children’s Mouth Rinses on Physical Properties of Glass Ionomer Cement. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2020. 44(5);342-347.

References

1.Marinho VC, Chong LY, Worthington HV, Walsh T. Fluoride mouthrinses for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016.

2. Reich, E., Petersson, L. , Netuschil, L, Brecx, M. Mouthrinses and dental caries. Int Dent J 52: 337-45, 2002.

3. Delgado AJ, Dias Ribeiro AP, Quesada A, Rodríguez LE, Hernández R, Wynkoop B, Dilbone DA. Potential erosive effect of mouthrinses on enamel and dentin. Gen Dent 66:75-79, 2018.

4. Atala MH, Ustağlu G, Atala N, Yeğin E. Effect of different mouthwashes on discoloration of plaque-free tooth surfaces. Am J Dent 31:211-4, 2018.

5. da Silva AB, Rapôso NM, Gomes IA, Gonçalves LM, Paschoal MA. In vitro quantitative comparison of erosive potential of infant mouthwashes on glass ionomer cement. J Clin Exp Dent 10:e206-11, 2018.

6. Ulusoy NB, Arikan V, Akbay Oba A. Effect of mouthwashes on the discolouration of restorative materials commonly used in paediatric dentistry. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 19:147-153, 2018.

7. Zuanon AC, Aranha AM. Mouthwash ingestion by preschool children. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 30:15-7, 2005.

8. Donovan TE. Clinical management of root caries. J Indiana Dent Assoc 88:23-4, 2009.

9. Barbour ME, Lussi A, Shellis RP. Screening and prediction of erosive potential. Caries Res 45:24-32, 2011.

10. Owens BM. The potential effects of pH and buffering capacity on dental erosion. Gen Dent 55:527–31, 2007.

11. Johansson AK, Sorvari R, Birkhed D, Meurman JH. Dental erosion in deciduous teeth—An in vivo and in vitro study. J Dent 29:333–40, 2001.

12. Miranda D de A, Bertoldo CE, Aguiar FH, Lima DA, Lovadino JR. Effects of mouthwashes on Knoop hardness and surface roughness of dental composites after different immersion times. Braz Oral Res 25:168-73, 2011.

13. Festuccia MS, Garcia Lda F, Cruvinel DR, Pires-De-Souza Fde C. Color stability, surface roughness and microhardness of composites submitted to mouthrinsing action. J Appl Oral Sci 20:200-5, 2012.

14. Lepri CP, Ribeiro MV, Dibb A, Palma-Dibb RG. Influence of mounthrinse solutions on the color stability and microhardness of a composite resin. Int J Esthet Dent 9:238-46, 2014.

15. Almeida GS, Poskus LT, Guimarães JG, da Silva EM. The effect of mouthrinses on salivary sorption, solubility and surface degradation of a nanofilled and a hybrid resin composite. Oper Dent 35:105-11, 2010.

16. Hu J, Du X, Huang C, Fu D, Ouyang X, Wang Y. Antibacterial and physical properties of EGCG-containing glass ionomer cements. J Dent 41:927-34, 2013.

17. Paschoal MA, Gurgel CV, Rios D, Magalhães AC, Buzalaf MA, Machado MA. Fluoride release profile of a nanofilled resin-modified glass ionomer cement. Braz Dent J 22:275-9, 2011.

18. Kleverlaan CJ, van Duinen RN, Feilzer AJ. Mechanical properties of glass ionomer cements affected by curing methods. Dent Mater 20: 45-50, 2004.

19. Pretty IA, Edgar WM, Higham SM. The erosive potential of commercially available mouthrinses on enamel as measured by Quantitati- ve Light-induced Fluorescence (QLF). J Dent 31:313-9,
2003.

20. Atkins PW, De Paula J. Chemical equilibrium: equilibria in solution. In: Atkins PW, De Paula J, editors. The elements of physical chemistry. 2nd Ed. Oxford University Press; 1996. p. 172–92.

21. Fukazawa M, Matsuya S, Yamane M. Mechanism for erosion of glass-ionomer cements in an acid buffer solution. J Dent Res 66:1770–4, 1987

22. Eliades G. Chemical and biological properties of glass ionomer cements. In: Davidson CL, Mjör IA, editors. Advances in Glass Ionomer Cements. Berlin/Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Co; 1999. p. 85–101.

23.Yu H, Wegehaupt FJ, Wiegand A, Roos M, Attin T, Buchalla W. Erosion and abrasion of tooth-colored restorative materials and human enamel. J Dent 37:913-22, 2009.

24. Kaur S, Makkar S, Kumar R, Pasricha S, Gupta P. Comparative evaluation of surface properties of enamel and different esthetic restorative materials under erosive and abrasive challenges: an in vitro study. Indian J Dent 6:172-80, 2015.

25. Prentice LH, Tyas MJ, Burrow MF. Ion leaching of a glass-ionomer glass: an empirical model and effects on setting characteristics and strength. J Mater Sci Mater Med 18:127-31, 2007.

26. Bollen CML, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention review of the literature. Dent Mater 13:258-69,1997.

27. Trauth KG, Godoi AP, Colucci V, Corona SA, Catirse AB. The influence of mouthrinses and simulated toothbrushing on the surface roughness of a nanofilled composite resin. Braz Oral Res 26:209-14, 2012.

28. Carvalho FG, Sampaio CS, Fucio SB, Carlo HL, Correr-Sobrinho L, Puppin -Rontani RM. Effect of chemical and mechanical degradation on surface roughness of three glass ionomers and a nanofilled resin composite. Oper Dent 37:509-17, 2012.

29. Sadaghiani L, Wilson MA, Wilson NH. Effect of selected mouthwashes with and without toothbrushing on the surface hardness of a resin modified glass-ionomer and two compomers. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 15:98- 103, 2007.

30. Kanzow P, Wegehaupt FJ, Attin T, Wiegand A. Etiology and pathogenesis of dental erosion. Quintessence Int 2016;47:275–278

31. Buedel S, Lippert F, Zero DT, Eckert GJ, Hara AT. Impact of dentifrice abrasivity and remineralization time on erosive tooth wear in vitro. Am J Dent 31: 29–33, 2018.

32.Buzalaf MAR, Hannas AR, Kato MT. Saliva and dental erosion. J Applied Oral Sci 20:493–502, 2012.

33.Eisenburger M, Addy M, Hughes JA, Shellis, RP. Effect of time on the remineralization of enamel by synthetic saliva after citric acid erosion. Caries Res 35:211–215, 2001.

34. Harte DB, Manly RS. Effect of toothbrush variables on wear of dentin produced by four abrasives. J Dent Res 54:993-98, 1975.

35. Hefferren JJ. A laboratory method for assessment of dentrifrice abrasivity. J Dent Res 55:563-73, 1976.

36. Mondelli RF, Wang L, Garcia FC, Prakki A, Mondelli J, Franco EB, Ishikiriama A. Evaluation of weight loss and surface roughness of compomers after simulated toothbrushing abrasion test. J Appl Oral Sci 13:131-5, 2005.

37. Lai G, Zhao L, Wang J, Kunzelmann KH. Surface properties and color stability of dental flowable composites influenced by simulated toothbrushing.Dent Mater J 37:717-24, 2018.

38.Costa J, Adams-Belusko A, Riley K, Ferracane JL. The effect of various dentifrices on surface roughness and gloss of resin composite. J Dent 38:e123-28, 2010.

39. da Silva EM, de Sá Rodrigues CU, Dias DA, da Silva S,Amaral CM, Guimarães JG. Effect of toothbrushing-mouthrinse-cycling on surface roughness and topography of nanofilled, microfilled, and microhybrid resin composites. Oper Dent 39:521-29. 2014.

40. De Boer P, Duinkerke AS, Arends J. Influence of tooth paste particle size and tooth brush stiffness on dentine abrasion in vitro. Caries Res 19:232-9, 1985

41. Delgado AJ, Olafsson VG, Donovan TE. pH and erosive potential of commonly used oral moisturizers. J Prosthodont 25:39-43,
2016.

42. Bhatti SA, Walsh TF, Douglas CW. Ethanol and pH levels of proprietary mouthrinses. Community Dent Health11:71-4,1994.

43. ISO/TR. Dental materials —Guidance on testing of wear. Part 1: Wear by toothbrushing. No. 14569-1, 2007.

44. Honorio HM, Rios D, Francisconi LF, Magalhães AC, Machado MAAM, Buzalaf MAR. Effect of prolonged erosive pH cycling on different restorative materials J Oral Rehab 35:947-53, 2008.

Abstracted / indexed in

Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,500 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.

PubMed (MEDLINE) PubMed comprises more than 35 million citations for biomedical literature from MEDLINE, life science journals, and online books. Citations may include links to full text content from PubMed Central and publisher web sites.

Biological Abstracts Easily discover critical journal coverage of the life sciences with Biological Abstracts, produced by the Web of Science Group, with topics ranging from botany to microbiology to pharmacology. Including BIOSIS indexing and MeSH terms, specialized indexing in Biological Abstracts helps you to discover more accurate, context-sensitive results.

Google Scholar Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines.

JournalSeek Genamics JournalSeek is the largest completely categorized database of freely available journal information available on the internet. The database presently contains 39226 titles. Journal information includes the description (aims and scope), journal abbreviation, journal homepage link, subject category and ISSN.

Current Contents - Clinical Medicine Current Contents - Clinical Medicine provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in clinical medicine.

BIOSIS Previews BIOSIS Previews is an English-language, bibliographic database service, with abstracts and citation indexing. It is part of Clarivate Analytics Web of Science suite. BIOSIS Previews indexes data from 1926 to the present.

Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition aims to evaluate a journal’s value from multiple perspectives including the journal impact factor, descriptive data about a journal’s open access content as well as contributing authors, and provide readers a transparent and publisher-neutral data & statistics information about the journal.

Scopus: CiteScore 2.0 (2022) Scopus is Elsevier's abstract and citation database launched in 2004. Scopus covers nearly 36,377 titles (22,794 active titles and 13,583 Inactive titles) from approximately 11,678 publishers, of which 34,346 are peer-reviewed journals in top-level subject fields: life sciences, social sciences, physical sciences and health sciences.

Submission Turnaround Time

Conferences

Top