Effect of different surface penetrating sealants on the roughness of a nanofiller composite resin

• Autor(a) principal: Lopes,Murilo Baena
• Data de Publicação: 2012
• Outros Autores: Saquy,Paulo Cesar, Moura,Sandra Kiss, Wang,Linda, Graciano,Fabiana Mezzaroba Ortenzi, Correr Sobrinho,Lourenço, Gonini Júnior,Alcides
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Brazilian Dental Journal
• Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-64402012000600011
• topic: surface sealant; toothbrushing; roughness; SEM

This study evaluated the effectiveness of different sealants applied to a nanofiller composite resin. Forty specimens of Filtek Z-350 were obtained after inserting the material in a 6x3 mm stainless steel mold followed by light activation for 20 s. The groups were divided (n=10) according to the surface treatment applied: Control group (no surface treatment), Fortify, Fortify Plus and Biscover LV. The specimens were subjected to simulated toothbrushing using a 200 g load and 250 strokes/min to simulate 1 week, 1, 3 and 6 months and 1 and 3 years in the mouth, considering 10,000 cycles equivalent to 1 year of toothbrushing. Oral-B soft-bristle-tip toothbrush heads and Colgate Total dentifrice at a 1:2 water-dilution were used. After each simulated time, surface roughness was assessed in random triplicate readings. The data were submitted to two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test at a 95% confidence level. The specimens were observed under scanning electron microscopy (SEM) after each toothbrushing cycle. The control group was not significantly different (p&gt;0.05) from the other groups, except for Fortify Plus (p<0.05), which was rougher. No significant differences (p&gt;0.05) were observed at the 1-month assessment between the experimental and control groups. Fortify and Fortify Plus presented a rougher surface over time, differing from the baseline (p<0.05). Biscover LV did not differ (p&gt;0.05) from the baseline at any time. None of the experimental groups showed a significantly better performance (p&gt;0.05) than the control group at any time. SEM confirmed the differences found during the roughness testing. Surface penetrating sealants did not improve the roughness of nanofiller composite resin.