The combined effect of food-simulating solutions, brushing and staining on color stability of composite resins

Figures & data

Table 1. Compositions of the composite resin tested.

Materials	Type	Composition	Filler content
Grandio SO (Voco)	Nanohybrid	Inorganic fillers in a methacrylate matrix (Bis-GMA, TEGDMA, UDMA).	89% w/w
Amaris (Voco)	Microhybrid	Inorganic fillers in a methacrylate matrix (Bis-GMA, UDMA, TEGDMA).	80% w/w
Filtek Z350 XT (3M/ESPE)	Nanofill	Inorganic fillers in a methacrylate matrix (Bis-PMA, UDMA, Bis-GMA, TEGDMA).	78.5% w/w
Filtek P90 (3M/ESPE)	Microhybrid	Silorane resin, particles of quartz, fluoride itreo, stabilizer, Initiator, Pigments.	76% w/w

Figure 1. Mean values of color alteration (ΔE) of the composite resins for all experimental conditions.

Table 2. Results of color alteration (ΔE) for the composite resins tested.

Composite resins	Mean (±SD)	Homogeneous groups^a
Filtek Z350 XT	5.39 (±2.48)	A
Amaris	3.89 (±2.10)		B
Grandio SO	3.75 (±2.46)		B	C
Filtek P90	3.36 (±1.71)			C

^a Different letters mean significant differences among groups (p < .05).

Table 3. Results of color alteration (ΔE) for food-simulating solutions.

Food-simulating solution	Mean (±SD)	Homogeneous groups^a
Heptane	4.41 (±2.32)	A
Citric acid	4.24 (±2.28)	A
Ethanol	4.02 (±2.34)	A	B
Artificial saliva	3.76 (±2.37)		B

^a Different letters mean significant differences among groups (p < .05).

Table 4. Results of color alteration (ΔE), according to the treatments.

Treatments	Mean (±SD)	Homogeneous groups^a
Dye	4.53 (±2.25)	A
Brushing	4.26 (±2.69)	A
Food-simulating media	3.52 (±1.90)		B

^a Different letters mean significant differences among groups (p < .05).