Influence of abrasive dentifrices on polymeric reconstructive material properties after simulated toothbrushing

Figures & data

Table 1. Manufacturers, shade, composition and lot number of the materials tested in the present study.

Product name	Manufacturer	Shade	Composition	Lot number
Ivotion-Base	Ivoclar, Schaan, Liechtenstein	Pink-V	Polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) >90%; co-polymer, pigments	Z00J71
Ivotion-Dent	Ivoclar, Schaan, Liechtenstein	Multi-A3,5	Double crosslinked polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA)	Z00Y24
Ivobase-Hybrid	Ivoclar, Schaan, Liechtenstein	Pink-V	Powder: polymethyl methacrylate, citrate softener, initiator, pigments; liquid: methyl methacrylate, dimethacrylate, catalyst	NM0188
Empress Direct	Ivoclar, Schaan, Liechtenstein	A1 enamel	Barium glass, mixed oxide, Ba–Al–fluorosilicate glass (78.1%); dimethacrylate (21.5%); catalists and stabilizers (0.4%); pigments (<0.1%)	Z03SFN
Dentifrice RDA 0	N&W Dental Care, São Paulo, Brazil	–	Hyaluronic acid (HA); green tea extract (Camellia sinensis); DSBC – dimethylsilyl salicylate; tetrasodium pyrophosphate	–
Dentifrice RDA 50	N&W Dental Care, São Paulo, Brazil	–	Hydrated silica – RDA 50; fluoride – NaF + MFP − 1500 ppm; hyaluronic acid (HA); green tea extract (Camellia sinensis); DSBC – dimethylsilyl salicylate; tetrasodium pyrophosphate	L218002
Dentifrice RDA 100	N&W Dental Care, São Paulo, Brazil	–	Hydrated silica – RDA 100; hyaluronic acid (HA); green tea extract (Camellia sinensis); DSBC – dimethylsilyl salicylate; tetrasodium pyrophosphate	L218001
Dentifrice RDA 120	N&W Dental Care, São Paulo, Brazil	–	Hydrated silica – RDA 120; hyaluronic acid (HA); green tea extract (Camellia sinensis); DSBC – dimethylsilyl salicylate; tetrasodium pyrophosphate	L218003

Figure 1. Cylinders (3 × 3 mm) of the experimental materials. (A) Ivotion-Dent, (B) Ivotion-Base, (C) Empress Direct and (D) IvoBase-Hybrid placed in custom-made transparent acrylic resin for toothbrush simulation after surface polishing.

Figure 2. Mean and 95% CI for Ra surface roughness parameter of the tested materials as a function of RDA level and timepoint. *I: immediate; **F: final. ***Different letters represent significant statistical difference.

Figure 3. Representative SEM micrographs (10kx) of all tested groups. Ivotion-Base: A–E; Ivotion-Dent: F–J; Empress Direct: K–O; IvoBase-Hybrid: P–T. Different topographical patterns of the materials after toothbrushing for 72,000 cycles were observed as a function of dentifrice RDA. Baseline, RDA 0, RDA 50, RDA 100, RDA 120, from left to right, respectively.

Figure 4. Mean and 95% CI for microhardness parameter of the tested materials as a function of RDA level and timepoint. *Different letters represent significant statistical difference.

Figure 5. Mean and 95% CI for translucency parameter (TP) of the tested materials as a function of RDA level and timepoint. *Different letters represent significant statistical difference.

Figure 6. Mean and 95% CI for contrast ratio parameter of the tested materials as a function of RDA level and timepoint. *Different letters represent significant statistical difference.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.