Journal of Conservative Dentistry
Home About us Editorial Board Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact e-Alerts Login 
Users Online: 7742
Print this page  Email this page Bookmark this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
 


 
Table of Contents   
ORIGINAL ARTICLE  
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 24  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 379-383
Microhardness and surface roughness of Biodentine exposed to mouthwashes


1 Department of Materials and Prosthodontics, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto School of Dentistry, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil
2 Department of Oral Rehabilitation, School of Dentistry, National University of Concepción, Concepción, Paraguay

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Submission02-Mar-2021
Date of Decision23-Jun-2021
Date of Acceptance24-Sep-2021
Date of Web Publication13-Jan-2022
 

   Abstract 


Aim: This study evaluates Vickers microhardness and surface roughness in Biodentine cement (M1) and glass-ionomer cement Fuji IX (M2), both immersed in mouthwash.
Materials and Methods: Fifty-four samples were randomly distributed in distilled water (S1), Listerine Cool Mint (S2), and Colgate Plax (S3). Each sample was put in a flask with mouthwash for 2 min, under vibration, twice a day for 21 days. Microhardness and surface roughness were assessed at 48 h (T0), 7 days (T1), 14 days (T2), and 21 days (T3).
Results: For roughness: time (T), solution (S) and material (M), TxM, and SxM and for microhardness: M, TxS, TxM, and SxM were statistically significant. T3, M1, M1T3, and M1S1 presented the highest surface roughness. M2, M1T0, M1T1, M1T2, M1S1, and M1S2 presented higher microhardness.
Conclusion: Biodentine showed higher surface roughness for T1, T2, and T3 and higher microhardness for T0, T1, and T2 against Fuji IX. Biodentine presented higher microhardness independently of solution.

Keywords: Antiseptic mouthwash; dental restorative materials; glass-ionomer cement; hardness

How to cite this article:
Arnez MM, Castelo R, Ugarte D, Andrade Almeida Ld, Dotta TC, Elizaur Benitez Catirse AB. Microhardness and surface roughness of Biodentine exposed to mouthwashes. J Conserv Dent 2021;24:379-83

How to cite this URL:
Arnez MM, Castelo R, Ugarte D, Andrade Almeida Ld, Dotta TC, Elizaur Benitez Catirse AB. Microhardness and surface roughness of Biodentine exposed to mouthwashes. J Conserv Dent [serial online] 2021 [cited 2022 Aug 18];24:379-83. Available from: https://www.jcd.org.in/text.asp?2021/24/4/379/335736



   Introduction Top


Temporary restorative materials are widely used in clinical practice and they are expected to properly seal treated areas. For a proper selection of this material, it is necessary to take into account its ability to withstand the effect of the various factors that act on the oral cavity and to maintain its physical and mechanical properties for a period of 21 days.[1]

Glass-ionomer cement (GIC) are routinely employed as temporary restorative materials and present a level of adhesion to dental tissue that contributes to a proper marginal seal and, consequently, to the longevity of the restoration. Moreover, GIC present the additional benefit of continuous release of fluorine with excellent biocompatibility, characteristics that make them frequent suitable choices.[2],[3]

Biodentine™ (Septodont, Saint-Maur, France) is presented as a dental substitute due to its mechanical properties. The main composition of its powder is tricalcium silicate (Ca3SiO5), zirconium oxide, and calcium carbonate. The liquid is a mixture of water, calcium chloride, and a water-soluble polymer.[4] This material is indicated for dentine substitution in direct and indirect capping, pulpotomies, furcation lesions and root perforations, reabsorption treatments, and temporary restorations for posterior teeth.[5]

Since its market launch, most studies evaluated properties related to its application in endodontic lesions, such as cytotoxicity, solubility, radiopacity, and microstructure union resistance.[6],[7],[8],[9],[10] Regarding these properties, Biodentine exhibits good workability, biocompatibility, and bacteriostatic properties.[11]

Nevertheless, there are studies of its use as a temporary restorative material regarding its endurance time within the cavity, surface characteristics due to abrasion,[5] surface roughness, and microhardness compared against other cement in several experimental settings.[6],[8],[12],[13]

Surface properties, such as teeth and material surface roughness and microhardness, play a fundamental role in quality of temporary fillings.[14] Surface biodegradation resulting from exposure to chemical solutions, such as oral mouthwashes, can affect these properties.[15] It should be considered that mouthwashes are routinely used by patients due to their anti-inflammatory and antiseptic properties.[16]

These solutions vary in their composition and can damage the surface of restorative materials due to low pH and alcohol in its composition.[17] Even though there are studies on their effects on several restorative materials, the subject is still controversial.[18] The continuous arrival of new alternatives is driven by a constant search for more suitable materials with better physical, mechanical, chemical, and biological properties.

There are few studies in the literature related to Biodentine™ as a temporary filling material, as well as to the effect of mouthwash on roughness and microhardness. In light of this situation, the objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of these hygienic agents in surface roughness and microhardness, comparing Biodentine™ to other GIC for temporary fillings for a period of 21 days.


   Materials and Methods Top


The factors studied were restorative materials: Biodentine and the Fuji IX GIC, solution: distilled water (control), Listerine® Cool Mint, and Colgate Plax Ice Infinity, and time: 48 h, 7 days, 14 days, and 21 days. To analyze surface roughness and microhardness, 54 test samples were organized in two groups, one group per filling material, with 27 samples each. Each group was randomly subdivided (n = 9) and assigned a solution for immersion.

Preparation of test samples

Following manufacturer specifications, the two filling materials: Biodentine™ (Septodont, Saint Maur Des Fosses, France) and Fuji IX (GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan), were used to prepare 6-mm-diameter, 2-mm-height test samples in a Teflon matrix. Afterward, these samples were put on a glass surface inside a polyester matrix and then, after a 24-h stand-by period, polished with Sof-Lex (3M) discs.

All samples were kept at 100% relative humidity and 37°C ± 1°C for the duration of the experimental phase, only being taken out of the stove to be immersed in the 3 proposed solutions and when measurements were taken at 48 h and 7, 14, and 21 days.

One by one, samples were immersed in an 8-mL flask containing its assigned solution [Table 1] for 1 min, under vibration (cast vibrator used: Vibramaxx Gold Line-Essence Dental VH, Araraquara, Sao Paulo), twice a day for 21 days.[18]
Table 1: Mean surface roughness for the interaction material (M) × time (T) and material (M) × solution (S)

Click here to view


Surface roughness measurement

A SJ-201 P/M rugosimeter (Mitutoyo, Tokyo, Japan) was used. A distance of 0.8 × 3 μm was previously determined and standardized. Three readings were taken each time, registering the arithmetic mean as the accepted value.

Microhardness measurement

An HMV-2000 microhardness meter with a Vickers-type pyramidal diamond penetrator (Shimadzu Corporation, Japan) was used, with 100-g weight, applied for 30 seconds. For each sample, three readings were taken, registering the arithmetic mean as the accepted value.

Statistical analysis

Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk tests confirmed the data distribution normality. Afterward, data were analyzed using analysis of variance and a complementary Tukey's test (P ≤ 0.05). Analysis was performed using the Assistat (7.7 beta) Software Package.


   Results Top


Statistically significant difference was found for roughness, regarding the factors time (P < 0.01), solution (P < 0.05), and material (P < 0.01) when analyzed separately. Also for material × time (P < 0.01) and material × solution (P < 0.01) interactions.

The highest mean roughness values were found at material × time [Table 1] and material × solution [Table 1] interactions, M1 (Biodentine) after 21 days (T3). While M2 (GIC) showed no significant difference at all experimental periods (T0, T1, T2, and T3), where the smaller mean values were observed from T1 to T3 and when the immersion solution was water, confirming when analyzed in isolation.

When immersed in water, M1 showed higher mean values than in S1 and S2, both statistically equals. No differences were found for M2 regarding the immersion solutions [Table 1].

It was statistically significant for microhardness: the material factor (P < 0.01) and for the interactions: solution × time, material × time, and material × solution (0.01 ≤ P < 0.05). Materials immersed in S2 showed lower mean microhardness values after 14 days.

For material × time interaction, M1 presented similar results at all times. M2 at T0, T1, and T3 was also statistically equal. In contrast, M1 showed the highest microhardness at 48 h, 7 days, and 14 days than M2. While at 21 days, no difference was found between M1 and M2 [Table 2]. Finally, for material × solution interaction, M1 showed no difference on its microhardness at any solution. Whereas M2 presented differences between S1 and S3 (S3 > S1). When immersed in S1 or S2, M1 presented the highest microhardness values than M2. However, M1 and M2 mean values were similar when immersed in S3 [Table 2].
Table 2: Mean microhardness for the interaction solution (S) × time (T), interaction material (M) × time (T), and interaction material (M) × solution (S)

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


The success of the restoration depends not only on choices made during execution but also on the correct indication. The restorative material chosen plays an important role in determining for how long the procedure fulfills its purpose. This selection should be made considering the aggressive environment of the oral cavity, taking into account all the agents that may have effects on it. Among these, chemical agents found in food and oral mouthwash, physical agents, such as temperature and colorants, and mechanical agents, such as masticatory forces and other tensions due to parafunctional habits.[19] Although the materials of this study, Biodentine and glass ionomer, are indicated for temporary restorations,[5] which represents a short stay in the oral cavity, they must have properties that ensure tooth protection in treatment and gingival health. Thus, surface roughness and microhardness are important properties for these materials.

After an analysis of surface roughness data, the interaction between material and time influences the surface roughness. Biodentine™, at 21 days, presents the highest mean surface roughness compared to the times in 48 h, 7 days, and 14 days. On the other hand, GIC maintained its properties in the same time period. This is probably due to the exposition time that may favor an increase of solubility. Comparing both materials, at its first 48 h, no statistical difference was found for roughness. However, from 7 to 21 days of immersion, it was verified that Biodentine™ presented higher mean roughness when compared to the Fuji IX GIC. This could be related to their composition. Biodentine™ contains tricalcium silicate, calcium carbonate, and zirconium oxide in its powder and calcium chloride in its liquid.[20] According to Vivan et al.,[21] it releases calcium ions that contribute to an increase in solubility when compared to materials that do not release ions. This is said to result in the disintegration of the material, which could be a determining factor for an increase in roughness.

Regarding the interaction of material and solution, results were statistically significant. It was observed that Biodentine™ presented higher surface roughness when immersed in distilled water when compared to Colgate Plax Ice Infinity and Listerine® Cool Mint mouthwashes. There is controversy in the literature regarding the influence of mouthwash products, with or without alcohol, on observed surface roughness in different filling materials.[17],[18],[22],[23] Thus, it can be assumed that the effects of the solution will depend not only on its composition but also on the material that gets in contact with it. Comparing M1 and M2, Biodentine presented higher roughness at all immersion solutions. This is probably because of the composition of Biodentine™ having an influence due to its higher solubility when compared to the GIC.[7],[13] Kaup et al.[6] state that Biodentine™ contains calcium hydroxide and calcium oxide. Both compounds release OH− and Ca2+ ions, which result in increased solubility.[21]

After analyzing the time × material interaction, it was observed that Biodentine™ presented statistically similar mean values at all times and also showed higher microhardness than Fuji IX GIC at 48 h, 7 days, and 14 days. At 21 days, Biodentine and GIC presented similar microhardness. M1 behavior regarding immersion time, shows its lower susceptibility. Oppositely, the higher microhardness of Biodentine™, when compared to the Fuji IX GIC, is probably related to the presence of a plasticizing water-soluble polymer within the liquid and to the lower water/powder ratio,[24] resulting in better mechanical properties. However, the behavior similarity trend at 21 days is an interesting record.

Regarding material × solution interaction, it was observed that Biodentine™ presented higher microhardness means in distilled water and in Listerine® Cool Mint than that the Fuji IX GIC. GIC behavior may be due to its water sensibility. However, with Colgate Plax Ice Infinity, no differences were observed for these materials regarding microhardness. No related work is known to the researchers on Biodentine™ and its interaction with the mouthwash products at this moment.

Restorative materials in the oral cavity are frequently exposed to complex and diverse conditions[15] which can affect their properties. The relevance of the results with respect to roughness and microhardness is to show the need of new ways to polish or a way to protect the Biodentine surface in such a way as to prevent biofilm accumulation. In addition, to establish a mean of surface protection can be beneficial to reduce the direct effect of mouthwashes, food or beverages, and saliva establishing some means of surface protection would also be beneficial in decreasing the direct action of mouthwashes, food solutions, and saliva. It also allows to observe that the permanence of this material inside cavity for over 14 days will promote a higher roughness surface. This will help draw clear boundaries in which its indication has maximum longevity regarding its temporary indication.


   Conclusion Top


Biodentine™ showed higher roughness at 21 days, while the Fuji IX GIC showed no variation at 48 h, 7 days, 14 days, and 21 days.

Biodentine™ showed higher roughness than the Fuji IX GIC at 7, 14, and 21 days and when submitted to immersion solutions;

The Fuji IX GIC presented lower microhardness than Biodentine™ at 48 h, 7 days, and 14 days, while at 21 days, they were equivalent.

Biodentine™ presented higher microhardness than the Fuji IX GIC when immersed in distilled water and in the alcohol-based mouthwash. Whereas in the nonalcohol-based solution, the microhardness values were similar.

Financial support and sponsorship

This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) - Finance Code 001.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
   References Top

1.
Abramovitz I, Beyth N, Paz Y, Weiss EI, Matalon S. Antibacterial temporary restorative materials incorporating polyethyleneimine nanoparticles. Quintessence Int 2013;44:209-16.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Ana ID, Anggraeni R. Development of bioactive resin modified glass ionomer cement for dental biomedical applications. Heliyon 2021;7:e05944.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
de Lima Navarro MF, Pascotto RC, Borges AF, Soares CJ, Raggio DP, Rios D, et al. Consensus on glass-ionomer cement thresholds for restorative indications. J Dent 2021;107:103609.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Camilleri J, Sorrentino F, Damidot D. Investigation of the hydration and bioactivity of radiopacified tricalcium silicate cement, Biodentine and MTA Angelus. Dent Mater 2013;29:580-93.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Koubi G, Colon P, Franquin JC, Hartmann A, Richard G, Faure MO, et al. Clinical evaluation of the performance and safety of a new dentine substitute, Biodentine, in the restoration of posterior teeth – A prospective study. Clin Oral Investig 2013;17:243-9.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Kaup M, Schäfer E, Dammaschke T. An in vitro study of different material properties of Biodentine compared to ProRoot MTA. Head Face Med 2015;11:16.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Singh S, Podar R, Dadu S, Kulkarni G, Purba R. Solubility of a new calcium silicate-based root-end filling material. J Conserv Dent 2015;18:149-53.  Back to cited text no. 7
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
8.
Elsaka SE, Elnaghy AM, Mandorah A, Elshazli AH. Effect of titanium tetrafluoride addition on the physicochemical and antibacterial properties of Biodentine as intraorfice barrier. Dent Mater 2019;35:185-93.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Paula A, Laranjo M, Marto CM, Abrantes AM, Casalta-Lopes J, Gonçalves AC, et al. Biodentine boosts, WhiteProRoot®MTA increases and Life® suppresses odontoblast activity. Materials (Basel) 2019;12:1184.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Ochoa-Rodríguez VM, Tanomaru-Filho M, Rodrigues EM, Guerreiro-Tanomaru JM, Spin-Neto R, Faria G. Addition of zirconium oxide to Biodentine increases radiopacity and does not alter its physicochemical and biological properties. J Appl Oral Sci 2019;27:e20180429.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Mori GG, Teixeira LM, de Oliveira DL, Jacomini LM, da Silva SR. Biocompatibility evaluation of biodentine in subcutaneous tissue of rats. J Endod 2014;40:1485-8.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Camilleri J. Investigation of Biodentine as dentine replacement material. J Dent 2013;41:600-10.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Grech L, Mallia B, Camilleri J. Investigation of the physical properties of tricalcium silicate cement-based root-end filling materials. Dent Mater 2013;29:e20-8.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
de Carvalho Rocha AC, de Lima CS, da Silva Santos MD, Montes MA. Evaluation of surface roughness of a nanofll resin composite after simulated brushing and immersion in mouthrinses, alcohol and water. Mater Res 2010;13:77-80.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
de Paula AB, Alonso RC, de Araújo GA, Rontani JP, Correr-Sobrinho L, Puppin-Rontani RM. Influence of chemical degradation and abrasion on surface properties of nanorestorative materials. Braz J Oral Sci 2015;14:100-5.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Doray PG, Eldiwany MS, Powers JM. Effect of resin surface sealers on improvement of stain resistance for a composite provisional material. J Esthet Restor Dent 2003;15:244-9.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Cengiz S, Yüzbaşioğlu E, Cengiz MI, Velioğlu N, Sevimli G. Color stability and surface roughness of a laboratory-processed composite resin as a function of mouthrinse. J Esthet Restor Dent 2015;27:314-21.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Bohner LO, de Godoi AP, Ahmed AS, Neto PT, Catirse AB. Surface roughness of restorative materials after immersion in mouthwashes. Eur J Gen Dent 2016;5:111-4.  Back to cited text no. 18
  [Full text]  
19.
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 2012;37:509-17.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Han L, Okiji T. Uptake of calcium and silicon released from calcium silicate-based endodontic materials into root canal dentine. Int Endod J 2011;44:1081-7.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Vivan RR, Zapata RO, Zeferino MA, Bramante CM, Bernardineli N, Garcia RB, et al. Evaluation of the physical and chemical properties of two commercial and three experimental root-end filling materials. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010;110:250-6.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
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 2012;26:209-14.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Armas-Vega A, Casanova-Obando P, Taboada-Alvear MF, Aldas-Ramírez JE, Montero-Oleas N, Viteri-García A. Effect of mouthwashes on the integrity of composite resin and resin modified glass ionomer: In vitro study. J Clin Exp Dent 2019;11:e179-84.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Dawood AE, Manton DJ, Parashos P, Wong R, Palamara J, Stanton DP, et al. The physical properties and ion release of CPP-ACP-modified calcium silicate-based cements. Aust Dent J 2015;60:434-44.  Back to cited text no. 24
    

Top
Correspondence Address:
Dr. Mayara Manfrin Arnez
Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry of Ribeirao Preto, University of Sao Paulo, Cafe, s/n, Monte Alegre, Ribeirao Preto, Sao Paulo 14040-904
Brazil
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jcd.jcd_113_21

Rights and Permissions



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]



 

Top
 
 
 
  Search
 
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  
 


    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1117    
    Printed48    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded70    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal