Effect of Nutrients and Medicines on Surface of Compomer

Tamara Pelin Gündoğdu Özdal; Gülsüm Duruk

doi:10.7126/cumudj.503814

EN

Effect of Nutrients and Medicines on Surface of Compomer

Abstract

Objectives: The objective of this study is to examine the effect of nutrients and medicines frequently consumed by children on the surface roughness of the Polyacid-Modified Composite Resin (compomer), a restorative material typically used in pediatric dentistry.

Materials and Methods: VOCO Glasiosite® Caps compomer was used as the restoration material. Seven control groups consisting of nutrients and medicines frequently consumed by children from 0-6 years (Group 1: Ferro Sanol® B (150 ml) syrup, Group 2: Augmentin®-BID (400 mg/57 mg) suspension, Group 3: Calpol® (120 mg/150 ml ), Group 4: Bebelac® Gold 5 follow-on milk, Group 5: Danino® strawberry yogurt, Group 6: Nesquik® chocolate milk, Group 7: Cappy® orange juice) were formed and their pH values were measured. Compomer discs were created and their initial surface roughness was measured by Bruker® Stylus Profilometer. Taking into consideration its annual usage period, compomer material was brought in contact with solutions. Then the roughness test was repeated. SEM images of each compomer material were taken and compared with the control group.

Results: The evaluation of the medicine group revealed that Ferro Sanol® B displays the highest level of surface roughness difference (23.3 nm). As to the nutrients group, Cappy® orange juice showed the highest surface roughness difference (21.4 nm). SEM images support these findings.

Conclusions: The effect of the solutions on the surface roughness of filling surfaces increases depending on their acidity. However, it is believed that pH solely does not have any impact. These studies should be supported by corrosion experiments.

Keywords

surface properties,compomers,foods,drug utilization

References

Gonulol N, Yilmaz F. The effects of finishing and polishing techniques on surface roughness and color stability of nanocomposites. J Dent 2012;40 Suppl 2:e64-70.
Valentini F, Oliveira SG, Guimaraes GZ, Barbosa RP, Moraes RR. Effect of surface sealant on the color stability of composite resin restorations. Braz Dent J 2011;22(5):365-8.
Soncini, J. A., Maserejian, N. N., Trachtenberg, F., Tavares, M., & Hayes, C. The longevity of amalgam versus compomer/composite restorations in posterior primary and permanent teeth: findings From the New England Children's Amalgam Trial. The Journal of the American Dental Association 2007; 138(6), 763-772.
4. Toledano M., De La Torre F.J. and Osorio R.: Evaluation of two polishing methods for resin composites, Am J Dent 1994;7:328-30.
5. Shintani H., Satou J., Satou N., Hatashihara H. and Inoue T.: Effects of various finishing methods on staining and accumulation of Streptococcus mutans HS-6 on composite resins, Dent Mater 1985;1: 225-7.
6.Van Dijken, J. W. V., & Sjöström, S. Development of gingivitis around aged restorations of resin-modified glass ionomer cement, polyacid-modified resin composite (compomer) and resin composite. Clinical oral investigations 1998; 2(4), 180-183.
7. Vieira A, Lugtenborg M, Ruben JL, Huysmans MC. Brushing abrasion of eroded bovine enamel pretreated with topical fluorides. Caries Res. 2006; 40: 224-30.
8. Geurtsen W., Leyhausen G. and Garcia Godoy F.: Effect of storage media on the fluoride release and surface microhardness of four polyacid-modified composite resins (“compomers”). Dent Mater 1999; 15: 196-201.