10.59987/ads/2017.1.23-28
Background: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of different kind of beers on the surface roughness of glazed and polished methacrylate- and Silorane-based resin composites after different immersion periods.
Methods: Methacrylate-based resin composites (Tetric N-Ceram, Ceram-X) and a Silorane-based resin composite (Filtek Silorane) were tested in the study. A total of 126 specimens (n=42 for each composite) were fabricated using a cylindrical custom metal mould. Surface roughness measurement was performed using a profilometer at baseline and after a 1-week and 1-month immersion in different kind of beers or distilled water. The results were analysed using repeated measure ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD test (α=0.05).
Results: Repeated measure ANOVA results revealed that immersion period was a significant factor in the surface roughness of the tested specimens (p&lt;0.001). The lowest surface roughness values were obtained with the specimens’ polished Optidisc+BisCover LV. Regardless of the polishing systems used, Tetric N-Ceram showed the statistically lowest surface roughness values (p&lt;0.05), whereas Filtek Silorane showed the highest surface roughness (p&lt;0.001).
Conclusion: The surface roughness values of the tested resin composites were affected by the polishing procedure used, the exposure time in the solutions and the type of composite resin.
application/pdf
1971-1441
60
1
en
E. Yıldız 
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
Annali di stomatologia
silorane composite
Effects of different kinds of beers on the surface roughness of glazed and polished methacrylate and Silorane-based composites: a 1-month study
Text.Serial.Journal
https://www.annalidistomatologia.eu/ads
8
Original Article
2022-08-10
2022-08-10
2017-03-01
2023-12-04
23-28
Ann Stomatol (Roma)
E. Yıldız 
2017
10.59987/ads/2017.1.23-28
23
1971-1441
1
silorane composite
en
28
Effects of different kinds of beers on the surface roughness of glazed and polished methacrylate and Silorane-based composites: a 1-month study
https://www.annalidistomatologia.eu/ads/article/download/60/48
8
                                                                                                Original article


    Effects of different kinds of beers on the surface
    roughness of glazed and polished methacrylate and
    Silorane-based composites: a 1-month study




                                                                                                            i
                                                                                             n            al
    Ugur Erdemir PhD, DDS1                                ishing procedure used, the exposure time in the
    Murat Tiryaki PhD, DDS1                               solutions and the type of composite resin.
    Gunce Saygi DS1




                                                                                          io
    Taner YücelPhD, DDS1                                  Key words: surface roughness, glaze, beer, me-
    Sevda Ozel Yildiz PhD2                                thacrylate composite, silorane composite.
    Esra Yıldız PhD, DDS2




                                                              az
      Department of Restorative, Faculty of
                                                          Introduction
    1

    Dentistry, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey      Nanotechnology has already opened up to dentistry
    2 Department of Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine,   by manufacturing new composites based on




                                                            rn
    Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey                 nanofillers which generate both aesthetics and me-
                                                          chanics. These nanostructured composites have
                                                          combined the mechanical properties of “hybrid com-
                                                          posites” and the polishing ability of “microfilled com-




                                                          te
    Ugur Erdemir                                          posites” (1). Studies showed that lower surface
    Corresponding author:

    Department of Restorative Dentistry,                  roughness values and better results on longevity
    Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul University             were gained after the polishing of these resin com-
    34093 Istanbul, Turkey
                                                          In
                                                          posites (2-5).
    E-mail: uerdemir@istanbul.edu.tr                      In the past few years, Silorane-based resin compos-
                                                          ites have been introduced with highly related oxirane
                                                          groups and filler particles, which claim to have low
                                                          shrinkage and less water sorption as a result of better
                                                 ni

                                                          polymerisation (1, 6). Because of the improvement of
                                                          the types of composite materials, the longevity of
    Summary

                                                          restorations is expected to be higher. Not only the
                                        io


                                                          aesthetics, but also the physical properties of the
    Background: The aim of this in vitro study was to

                                                          restorations should stay stable since the operation
    evaluate the effect of different kind of beers on

                                                          day. Considering the dynamic environment of the oral
    the surface roughness of glazed and polished
                              iz



                                                          cavity, it is impossible for restorations not to be af-
    methacrylate- and Silorane-based resin compos-

                                                          fected by forces. One of the most important factors
    ites after different immersion periods.

                                                          for restorations to maintain their physical properties is
    Methods: Methacrylate-based resin composites
               Ed




                                                          the polishing procedures. With a high quality of pol-
    (Tetric N-Ceram, Ceram-X) and a Silorane-based

                                                          ishing, surfaces become more resistant to wear and
    resin composite (Filtek Silorane) were tested in

                                                          staining, thus increasing the longevity of the restora-
    the study. A total of 126 specimens (n=42 for each

                                                          tion (7). In addition, plaque accumulation, gingival irri-
    composite) were fabricated using a cylindrical

                                                          tations and unaesthetic appearance of the restora-
    custom metal mould. Surface roughness mea-

                                                          tions could be inhibited (7, 8).
    surement was performed using a profilometer at
 IC




                                                          The polishing of composites could be done with a
    baseline and after a 1-week and 1-month immer-

                                                          wide variety of instruments, including abrasive discs,
    sion in different kind of beers or distilled water.

                                                          strips, silicone-impregnated burs, rubberised points
    The results were analysed using repeated mea-

                                                          and polishing pastes. Although all of these polishing
    sure ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD test (α=0.05).
C




                                                          instruments produce a glossy surface on resin com-
    Results: Repeated measure ANOVA results re-

                                                          posite restorations, it has been reported that the pol-
    vealed that immersion period was a significant

                                                          ishing instruments can also leave irregularities on the
    factor in the surface roughness of the tested

                                                          surface in different degrees (7, 9). To eliminate these
    specimens (p<0.001). The lowest surface rough-
@




                                                          irregularities, filling the microporosities and micro-
    ness values were obtained with the specimens’

                                                          gaps, surface sealing could be used (10, 11). These
    polished Optidisc+BisCover LV. Regardless of the

                                                          materials can easily penetrate through the microc-
    polishing systems used, Tetric N-Ceram showed

                                                          racks and irregularities formed during the finishing
    the statistically lowest surface roughness values

                                                          and polishing procedures because of low viscosity
    (p<0.05), whereas Filtek Silorane showed the

                                                          and wettability characteristics (12, 13). It has been re-
    highest surface roughness (p<0.001).

                                                          ported that the application of surface sealant material
    Conclusion: The surface roughness values of the
    tested resin composites were affected by the pol-

    Annali di Stomatologia 2017;VIII (1):23-28                                                                   23
    U. Erdemir et al.


    into the restoration surface provides a more uniform        (VIP; Bisco Inc., Schaumburg, IL, USA) with a light
    and smooth surface, thereby affecting the longevity of      intensity of 600 mW/cm2, as measured using a curing
    the restoration by enhancing smoothness (14, 15). Be-       radiometer (Hilux Ledmax Light Curing Meter, Benli-
    sides, some studies have determined the diminishing of      oglu Dental Inc., Ankara, Turkey) following manufac-
    the surface roughness of composites in both in vitro        turer instructions for 20 seconds. The light curing unit
    and clinical conditions (16-18). It may be beneficial to    tip was positioned perpendicular to the specimens’
    use the surface sealants after restoring composite          surfaces, and the distance between the tip and the




                                                                                                                    i
                                                                                                                  al
    resins for patients who have excessive erosive habits.      specimen was standardised using a glass microscope
    Moreover, behavioural factors could cause the sur-          slide (1 mm in thickness). After the removal of the
    face irregularities of resin composites, such as con-       specimens from the moulds, they were numbered,
    sumption of staining food and drinking acidic and al-       identifying the bottom surface of each with a scalpel.




                                                                                                   n
    coholic drinks. As healthy living is becoming a popu-       All the specimens were stored in distilled water at
    lar lifestyle worldwide, many fruit juices have been        37±1°C for 24 hours for the completion of the poly-




                                                                                                io
    consumed regularly. Consumption of alcoholic drinks         merisation. Then, the specimens were randomly as-
    has been thought to have declined with this new con-        signed to three groups (n=42) (TN: Tetric N-Ceram,
    cept; however, the rate of beer drinking has in-            CX: Ceram-X and FS: Filtek Silorane) and two sub-




                                                                    az
    creased during the last 3 years. According data, beer       groups [polishing (Optidisc, KERR, California, USA)
    is the third most consumed drink all over the world,        and polishing + surface sealant application (Glazed)
    after tea and water (19, 20). Beers, with their ethanol     (Optidisc+BisCover LV, Bisco Inc., Schaumburg,
    content and low pH, have been found to change the           USA)]. For the subgroups, seven specimens from




                                                                  rn
    resin matrix of composites and to cause wear and            each resin composite were randomly assigned. All
    surface degradation (6, 21). Although, beer is the          the materials were used according to manufacturer
    most consumed beverage in the world, its effect on          instructions, and procedures were performed using




                                                                te
    the surface texture of tooth-coloured restorative ma-       the same operator in order to eliminate operator-de-
    terials is very limited. Therefore, this in vitro study     pendent variables. Low-viscosity surface sealant ma-
    was mainly aimed at evaluating the effect of different      terial was applied into the restoration surface after 15
    kinds of beer on the surface roughness of glazed and        seconds of orthophosphoric acid (Uni Etch-37; Bisco
                                                         In
    polished methacrylate- and Silorane-based resin             Inc., Schaumburg, IL, USA) application and five sec-
    composites after different immersion periods. In addi-      onds of air drying. Thereafter, a uniform layer of sur-
    tion, the related changes on surface roughness de-          face sealant material (Fortify, Bisco Inc., Schaum-
    pending on the type of beer, type of composite and          burg, IL, USA) was applied over the etched and dried
                                             ni
    type of surface treatments would become apparent            sample surface using a microbrush, which was gently
    by this experimental study. The hypothesis tested           air-thinned for 15 seconds, and then the surface was
    was that there would be no statistically significant dif-   polymerised for 10 seconds. Compositions and direc-
                                    io


    ference in surface roughness among different glazed         tions for use of all the materials used in this study are
    and polished resin composites after they are im-            shown in Table 1.
    mersed in different types of beer following different       In the sequel, the specimens were exposed to immer-
                           iz



    immersion periods.                                          sion regimen. The specimens of each group were im-
                                                                mersed into 30 ml of a regular (RB) or a dark (DB)
                                                                type of beer (Leffe, NV/SA InBev Inc., Belgium) 2
              Ed




                                                                hours a day at cold temperature (~ 4°C). Distilled wa-
                                                                ter was used as control (W). Between the immersion
    Materials and Methods

    A total of 126 disc-shaped specimens (8 mm in diam-         periods, the specimens were kept in distilled water at
    eter and 2 mm in thickness) were prepared from two          37±1°C. The immersion regimen was followed for 1
    nanohybrid resin composites (Tetric N-Ceram, Ivoclar        month.
    Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein; Ceram-X, Dentsply,         Surface roughness measurements were performed
 IC




    Konstanz, Germany) and a Silorane-based resin               using a profilometer (Taylor Hobson Surtronic 3, Tay-
    composite (Filtek Silorane, 3M ESPE, Seefeld, Ger-          lor Hobson Ltd., Leicester, UK) at baseline at the end
    many) using a custom-made stainless steel mould             of 1 week and 1 month. Before each measurement,
    (n=42 for each group). The resin material was insert-       the profilometer was calibrated against a standard.
C




    ed into the mould standing on a glass plate with a          The surface roughness (Ra) values of each specimen
    transparent polyester strip in one increment. Subse-        were measured on the centre part in five different di-
    quently, the top surface of the resin-filled mould was      rections, and the mean Ra values were determined
    covered with another polyester strip, and a glass           with a cut-off value of 0.8 mm, a transverse length of
@




    plate was placed onto it. Standard pressure (with a 1       4.0 mm and a stylus speed of 0.1 mm/s.
    kg weight) was applied on the glass plate for 15 sec-
    onds to let the excess resin out from the specimen
    surface to obtain a flat specimen surface without bub-
    ble formation. Following the removal of the weight
                                                                Statistical Analysis

    and the glass plate, the resin material was poly-           The relevant significance was approved at p=0.05.
    merised with a conventional halogen light curing unit       Statistical analysis was performed using repeated

    24                                                                             Annali di Stomatologia 2017;VIII (1):23-28
    Effects of different kinds of beers on the surface roughness of glazed and polished methacrylate and Silorane-based
    composites: a 1-month study

    Table 1. Materials used in the study.

     Material         Type               Composition                                           Manufacturer         Batch

     Tetric           Nanohybrid         Bis-GMA, UDMA, TEGDMA, Bis-EMA, 57% of                Ivoclar-Vivadent,    K08783




                                                                                                                            i
     N-Ceram          composite          filler: Barium glass, ytterbium trifluoride, mixed    Schaan,




                                                                                                                          al
                                         oxides and silica dioxide particles (0.04 - 3.0 nm,   Liechtenstein
                                         mean size 0.7 nm).
     Ceram-X          Nanohybrid         Methacrylate modified polysilane, dimethcrylate       Dentsply, DeTrey,    0707000986




                                                                                                             n
                      composite          resin, 76 wt% of filler; Barium aluminoborosilicate   Konstanz,
                                         glass, silica nanofiller, PPF (Glass: 1 µm; silica:   Germany




                                                                                                          io
                                         0.02 µm)

     Filtek           Silorane-          Silorane (3,4-                                        3M ESPE, 3M          N175794
     Silorane         based              epoxycyclohexylethylcyclopolymethyl-siloxane,         ESPE, Seefeld,




                                                                              az
                      microhybrid        bis-3,4- epoxycyclohexylethylphenylmethyl-            Germany
                      composite          silane), Silanized quartz, yttrium fluoride, 76 wt%

     Optidisc         Polishing          Polyester impregnated with aluminum oxide             KerrHawe,            4625964
                      Disk               particles                                             Bioggio,




                                                                            rn
                                                                                               Switzerland
     BisCover         Glaze              Dipentaerythritol diacrylate esters, ethanol          Bisco Inc.,          110001566
     LV               material                                                                 Iastasca, IL, USA




    measure analysis of variance (ANOVA), factors (pol-
    ishing system) and beverages (dark or regular beer)
                                                                          te
                                                                          tested solutions on different resin composites
                                                                          (p=0.245). Evaluating the results in detail, the SR val-
                                                               In
    affecting the roughness of the surfaces of composites                 ues for every composite used in the study were lower
    with different formulas. Tukey’s HSD test was used to                 in glazed specimens than polished ones in each solu-
    compare the roughness values between groups. All                      tion. The complete results of the tested materials are
    analyses were performed using a commercially avail-                   given in Table 3.
                                                 ni
    able software package (SPSSWIN 17.0, SPSS,                            Based on the baseline results, specimens obtained
    Chicago, IL, USA).                                                    from group TN had the lowest SR values overall. Pol-
                                                                          ished specimens in group DB had the highest SR val-
                                        io


                                                                          ues (0.13±0.05), followed by groups RB (0.12±0.04)
                                                                          and W (0.11±0.05), respectively. As for the values for
                                                                          group CX, specimens immersed in RB and DB
    Results
                              iz



    Repeated measure ANOVA results (Tab. 2) revealed                      showed exactly the same SR values (0.15±0.04). In
    that immersion period and polishing systems were                      other respects, specimens of W showed the lowest
    significant factors in the surface roughness (SR) of                  SR values (0.13±0.04) in all polishing groups. Group
                Ed




    the tested specimens (p<0.001). There were no sig-                    CX had the highest SR values in glazed groups
    nificant differences in surface roughness among the                   (0.11±0.05). Polished specimens of group FS had the


    Table 2. Repeated measures of ANOVA results.
 IC




    Source                                   Type III Sum            df          Mean Square          F            Sig.
                                             of Squares

                                             30.917                  1           30.917               7658.734
C




    Time                                                                                                           .000

    Material                                 0.266                   2           0.133                32.987       .000

    Solution                                 0.011                   2           0.006                1.409        .245

                                             0.976                   1           0.976                241.781
@




    Polishing system                                                                                               .000

    Material * Solution                      0.039                   4           0.01                 2.408        .048

    Material * Polishing                     0.061                   2           0.03                 7.533        .001

    Solution * Polishing                     0.035                   2           0.018                4.386        .013

    Material * Solution * Polishing          0.02                    4           0.005                1.248        .290



    Annali di Stomatologia 2017;VIII (1):23-28                                                                                   25
    U. Erdemir et al.


    Table 3. Mean values and standard deviations of tested materials in immersion medias.

    Material            Immersion         Distilled water              Regular beer                 Dark beer
                        period
                                          Polished      Glazed         Polished       Glazed        Polished       Glazed
                                          0.11±0.05     0.08±0.04      0.12±0.04      0.07±0.02     0.13±0.05      0.08±0.04




                                                                                                                        i
                                          0.14±0.06     0.09±0.04      0.14±0.04      0.08±0.03     0.15±0.06      0.10±0.05
    Tetric N Ceram      Baseline




                                                                                                                      al
                                          0.16±0.05     0.09±0.02      0.13±0.13      0.10±0.04     0.18±0.07      0.10±0.04
                        1 week
                        1 month
                                          0.13±0.04     0.11±0.05      0.15±0.04      0.10±0.05     0.15±0.04      0.10±0.04




                                                                                                       n
                                          0.13±0.03     0.11±0.05      0.15±0.04      0.12±0.05     0.15±0.06      0.11±0.04
    Ceram-X             Baseline


                                          0.13±0.03     0.11±0.05      0.14±0.03      0.13±0.07     0.14±0.04      0.11±0.04
                        1 week




                                                                                                    io
                        1 month
                                          0.17±0.1      0.1±0.07       0.15±0.07      0.11±0.07     0.16±0.09      0.09±0.04
                                          0.17±0.08     0.13±0.15      0.15±0.08      0.14±0.1      0.19±0.12      0.1± 0.05
    Filtek Silorane     Baseline




                                                                       az
                                          0.2±0.1       0.13±0.06      0.16±0.08      0.12±0.07     0.19±0.11      0.13±0.09
                        1 week
                        1 month




                                                                     rn
    highest SR values among all groups. Glazed speci-              Throughout, all the changes in oral environment, it is
    mens of RB had the highest SR scores (0.11±0.07),              crucial for restorations to maintain their surface char-
    followed by groups control (0.10±0.07) and DB                  acteristics. The purpose of this study was to evaluate
    (0.09±0.04), respectively.                                     the surface roughness values of different kinds of




                                                                   te
    Based on the 1-week results of SR values, group FS             composites immersed in different kinds of beer. Wa-
    had the highest values among all polished groups.              ter was used as “control” to imitate the wear capacity
    Specimens of DB in all polished groups had the high-           of saliva and to compare the roughness scores of
    est SR values among all immersion medias as well.
                                                       In          other groups.
    In TN groups, RB specimens showed slightly better              Considering the clinical results of surface roughness,
    results (0.14±0.04) than W groups (0.14±0.06) in both          initial plaque accumulation would occur if the values
    polished and glazed specimens. In CX groups, speci-            are measured above 0.2 µm (23). Based on a 1-
    mens of DB had slightly higher results (0.15±0.06)             month experiment period, Tetric N-Ceram had the
                                            ni

    than RB specimens (0.15±0.04). The W group had                 lowest values, while the Filtek Silorane composite
    the lowest scores among polished specimens. In                 had the highest results, which were at the exact
    glazed specimens, RB had the highest values                    threshold level in the study (0.20 µm). Hence, Silo-
                                    io


    (0.12±0.05). In FS groups, polished specimens of DB            rane-based composites were more prone to plaque
    had the highest values (0.19±0.12). Specimens of the           accumulation than methacrylate-based composites.
    W group showed higher SR values (0.17±0.08) than               The hypothesis is rejected based on the fact that the
                            iz



    those of the RB group (0.15±0.08). Comparing the               roughness values of Silorane- and methacrylate-
    glazed specimens, the DB group had the lowest                  based groups showed statistically significant results
    scores (0.10±0.05).                                            at the end of the experiment period.
               Ed




    At the end of 1 month, SR values followed about the            The roughness values of the composites depend on
    same pattern as before. FS groups had the highest              the particle size, type and concentration of the fillers.
    values among all polished groups. Regardless of the            Larger fillers do cause rougher surfaces than smaller
    polishing systems used, TN groups (W, RB and DB)               fillers (24). Despite having smaller averaged particles
    showed the statistically lowest surface roughness val-         (0.47 nm) than Tetric N-Ceram (0.7 nm) and Ceram-X
    ues (p<0.05), whereas FS groups showed the highest             (1 µm) composites, Filtek Silorane had the roughest
 IC




    surface roughness values (p<0.001).                            surface of them all following by Ceram-X. Then, eval-
                                                                   uating the filler concentration, lowest roughness val-
                                                                   ues were shown by Tetric N-Ceram and that could be
                                                                   attributed to its nanosized inorganic fillers with 57%
C




                                                                   loading. Both Filtek Silorane and Ceram-X are more
    Discussion

    Composites with different formulas in chemical com-            intensively concentrated (76%) with fillers than Tetric
    position are produced commercially. Because of their           N-Ceram. Even though Filtek Silorane had smaller
    varying contents, composites have gained different             particles than Ceram-X, silorane had rougher scores,
@




    advantageous properties. The surface characteristics           which is consistent with Bansal’s (6) and Benetti’s
    of composites are one of the most effective properties         (25) studies. However, there are conflicting results on
    which directly affect the longevity of restorations.           this issue in that some studies (24, 26) claim the op-
    With the chemical changes happening in the oral en-            posite or find similar results among composite types
    vironment, degradation of the surface of composite             (27, 28). The different roughness values of Filtek
    restorations would occur and consequently, a change            Silorane and Ceram-X could be due to different types
    in the roughness values would be observed (22).                of main inorganic fillers. Filtek Silorane has silanised

    26                                                                                 Annali di Stomatologia 2017;VIII (1):23-28
    Effects of different kinds of beers on the surface roughness of glazed and polished methacrylate and Silorane-based
    composites: a 1-month study

    quartz as inorganic filler, while Ceram-X has mostly            fect; besides, their alcoholic content is mostly miss-
    silica nanofillers.                                             ing. Meanwhile, a study (6) on the effects of whisky
    The surface roughness of a composite depends on                 on composites was evaluated and yielded results par-
    not only the inner structures but also the polishing            allel to the results of our study. In a study collaborat-
    procedures done following restoration (28). In this             ing with our results (22), the effects of alcoholic bev-
    study, Optidiscs were used for polishing, and a sur-            erages on surface roughness of different types of
    face sealant, BisCover LV, was used to glaze the                composites have compared and beer had found to




                                                                                                                            i
                                                                                                                          al
    specimens after the polishing system. One of the                change the surface roughness the most after follow-
    main reasons of manufacturing these low-viscosity               ing whisky in 1 month. The attributed changes were,
    surface sealants is that they have the ability to cover         likewise in our study, thought to be related with the
    up micro porosities and to complete surface integrity           low pH (4.1) of the related beer. Further studies are




                                                                                                           n
    (10). Based on the results at every time period, the            needed to investigate the effects of beers on other
    glazed groups of all composites had lower roughness             physical properties of composites. As the present




                                                                                                        io
    values than the polished groups. It is certain that             study is processed in in vitro situations, the effect of
    glazing did achieve better surfaces in this study,              the cleaning property of saliva is missing. Moreover,
    whose results corroborate with those of dos Santos’s            oral habits that may enhance permanent forces on




                                                                        az
    studies (17, 18). Regardless of the composite type, it          teeth and restorations such as tooth brushing may al-
    is revealed that glazing had a significant role in cor-         ter the surface properties as well. It is obvious that
    recting surface irregularities and had a better perfor-         the present study is limited to in vitro situations.
    mance than polishing procedures.




                                                                      rn
    Evaluating the effects of different kinds of beer on
    composites was one of the purposes of this study.
    Two types of beer from the same company (Leffe,
                                                                    Conclusion

                                                                    The surface roughness values of the tested resin




                                                                    te
    NV/SA InBev Inc., Belgium) were used to standardise
    the manufacturing properties. Distilled water was in-           composites were affected by the polishing procedure
    cluded as “control” just like in many studies (6, 25,           used and the type of composite resin. Silorane based
    29). Although, groups immersed in water of methacry-            composites had statistically inferior roughness scores
                                                          In        than nanohybrid composites. Moreover, glazing pro-
    late-based composites had smoother surfaces than
    beer groups without any statistically difference, the           cedure had better surface characteristics than only-
    water group of Silorane-based composites had rough-             polished samples. When choosing the optimum com-
    ness scores between dark and regular types of beer.             posites, it should be taken into consideration that,
                                                 ni
    The results could be attributed to differences in the           drinking habits could irruptive effect on the surface
    chemical composition of the composite groups or pos-            characteristics. Therefore, dietary anamnesis should
    sible inabilities of an in vitro experiment.                    also guide when selecting the material type and de-
                                        io


    Based on the 1-month results, groups immersed in                ciding on using polishing systems.
    dark beer had higher roughness values than groups               Even though the present study provides only 1-
    immersed in regular beer. This may be caused by the             month results, it emphasises the differences between
                              iz



    physical properties of the beers. The effects of alco-          Silorane- and methacrylate-based composites and
    holic drinks on composite materials were obvious, in            highlights the performance of glazing procedures and
    which ethanol concentration causes disassociation of            the effects of different types of beer on surface
               Ed




    substances from the surface. Water absorbance of                roughness. The effects of longer immersion periods
    the materials could cause plasticisation of organic             should be recorded, and additional methods, such as
    matrices and accelerate decomposition. Also, ethanol            atomic force microscopy, may be used in further stud-
    has directly penetrated through the resin matrix, bro-          ies to detect surface irregularities in detail.
    ken down the polymeric structure (25), separated the
    bonding between the filler and displaced the filler par-
 IC




    ticles finally resulting in inferior mechanical properties
    of the composites (22), which could be more impor-
                                                                    Conflicts of interest

    tant than prolonged immersion in water. The alcohol             None declared.
    concentrations of regular and dark beer were nearly
C




    the same, 6.6 and 6.5%, respectively. The hydrogen
    ion concentrations (pH) of beverages could cause the
    erosion of polymers and initiate surface degradation
                                                                    References

    as well. Although the types of malts have been                  1.   Buchgraber B, Kqiku L, Allmer N, Jakopic G, Städtler P. Sur-
@




    changed in order to identify beers as “regular” (light               face roughness of one nanofill and one silorane composite
                                                                         after polishing. Coll Antropol. 2011;35:879-883.
    malt) and “dark” (roasted malt), alcohol concentration
                                                                    2.   Yap AU, Yap SH, Teo CK, Ng JJ. Comparison of surface fin-
    and pH values (4.43 and 4.22, respectively) are simi-                ish of new aesthetic restorative materials. Oper Dent.
    lar. This could be the reason of no statistically signifi-           2004;29:100-104.
    cant roughness values resulted between beer types.              3.   Turssi CP, Ferracane JL, Serra MC. Abrasive wear of resin
    Studies on the effects of beers on surface roughness                 composites as related to finishing and polishing procedures.
    are lacking. Beers are thought to have a colorant ef-                Dent Mater. 2005;21:641-648.


    Annali di Stomatologia 2017;VIII (1):23-28                                                                                    27
    U. Erdemir et al.


    4.    Silikas N, Kavvadia K, Eliades G, Watts D. Surface char-          17. Dos Santos PH, Consani S, Correr Sobrinho L, Coelho Sin-
          acterization of modern resin composites: a multitechnique             horeti MA. Effect of surface penetrating sealant on roughness
          approach. Am J Dent. 2005;18:95-100.                                  of posterior composite resins. Am J Dent. 2003;16:197-201.
    5.    Mitra SB, Wu D, Holmes BN. An application of nanotech-            18. Dos Santos PH, Pavan S, Consani S, Sobrinho LC, Sinhoreti
          nology in advanced dental materials. J Am Dent Assoc.                 MA, Filho JN. In vitro evaluation of surface roughness of 4
          2003;134:1382-1390.                                                   resin composites after the toothbrushing process and meth-
    6.    Bansal K, Acharya SR, Saraswathi V. Effect of alcoholic and           ods to recover superficial smoothness. Quintessence Int.




                                                                                                                                        i
          non-alcoholic beverages on color stability and surface                2007;38:247-253.




                                                                                                                                      al
          roughness of resin composites: An in vitro study. J Conserv       19. Nelson M. The Barbarian’s Beverage: A History of Beer in
          Dent. 2012;15:283-288.                                                Ancient Europe. Routledge: Abingdon, Oxon, UK. P. 1, 2005.
    7.    Senawongse P, Pongprueksa P. Surface roughness of nanofill        20. Drink. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drink. Accessed, October
          and nanohybrid resin composites after polishing and brush-            13, 2015.




                                                                                                                      n
          ing. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2007;19:265-273.                       21. Sarret DC, Coletti, Peluso AR. The effect of alcoholic bev-
    8.    Erdemir U, Sancakli HS, Yildiz E. The effect of one-step and          erages on composite wear. Dent. Mater. 2000;16:62-67.




                                                                                                                   io
          multi-step polishing systems on the surface roughness and         22. DA Silva MA, Vitti RP, Sinhoreti MA, Consani RL, Silva-Júnior
          microhardness of novel resin composites. Eur J Dent.                  JG, Tonholo J. Effect of alcoholic beverages on surface rough-
          2012;6:198-205.                                                       ness and microhardness of dental composites. Dent Mater
    9.    Kumari RV, Nagaraj H, Siddaraju K, Poluri RK. Evaluation              J. 2016;35:621-626.




                                                                                az
          of the effect of surface polishing, oral beverages and food       23. Bollen CM, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M. Comparison of sur-
          colorants on color stability and surface roughness of                 face roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold sur-
          nanocomposite resins. J Int Oral Health. 2015;7:63-70.                face roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the
    10.   Saygı G, Karakoç P, Serbes I, Özel Yildiz S, Erdemir U, Yü-           literature. Dent Mater. 1997;13:258-269.




                                                                              rn
          cel T. Effect of surface sealing on stain resistance of a nano-   24. Tuncer S, Demirci M, Tiryaki M, Ünlü N, Uysal Ö. The effect
          hybrid resin composite. J Istanbul Univ Fac Dent. 2015;49:23-         of a modeling resin and thermocycling on the surface hard-
          30.                                                                   ness, roughness, and color of different resin composites. J
    11.   Lopes MB, Saquy PC, Moura SK, Wang L, Graciano FM, Cor-               Esthet Restor Dent. 2013;25:404-419.




                                                                            te
          rer Sobrinho L, Gonini Júnior A. Effect of different surface      25. Benetti AR, de Jesus VCBR, Martinelli NL, Pascotto RC, Poli-
          penetrating sealants on the roughness of a nanofiller com-            Frederico RC. Colour stability, staining and roughness of silo-
          posite resin. Braz Dent J. 2012;23:692-697.                           rane after prolonged chemical challenges. J Dent.
    12.   Ergücü Z, Türkün LS. Surface roughness of novel resin com-            2013;41:1229-1235.
          posites polished with one-step systems. Oper Dent.
                                                                    In      26. Marghalani HY. Effect of finishing/polishing systems on the
          2007;32:185-192.                                                      surface roughness of novel posterior composites. J Esthet
    13.   Antonson SA, Yazici AR, Okte Z, Villalta P, Antonson DE,              Restor Dent. 2010;22:127-138.
          Hardigan PC. Effect of resealing on microleakage of resin         27. Pettini F, Corsalini M, Savino MG, Stefanachi G, Di Venere
          composite restorations in relationship to margin design and           D, Pappalettere C, Boccaccio A. Roughness analysis on com-
                                                     ni
          composite type. Eur J Dent. 2012;6:389-395.                           posite materials (microfilled, nanofilled and silorane) after dif-
    14.   Takeuchi CY, Orbegoso Flores VH, Palma Dibb RG, Panz-                 ferent finishing and polishing procedures. Open Dent J.
          eri H, Lara EH, Dinelli W. Assessing the surface roughness            2015;9:357.
                                           io


          of a posterior resin composite: effect of surface sealing. Oper   28. Karaman E, Tuncer D, Firat E, Ozdemir OS, Karahan S. In-
          Dent. 2003;28:281-286.                                                fluence of different staining beverages on color stability, sur-
    15.   Bertrand MF, Leforestier E, Muller M, Lupi-Pégurier L, Bol-           face roughness and microhardness of silorane and methacry-
          la M. Effect of surface penetrating sealant on surface tex-           late-based composite resins. J Contemp Dent Pract.
                                 iz



          ture and microhardness of composite resins. J Biomed Mater            2014;15:319-325.
          Res. 2000;53:658-663.                                             29. Hui R, Choi IH, Hussein I, Hockey J, Hetrelizides D, Wong
    16.   Dickinson GL, Leinfelder KF. Assessing the long-term effect           RHK. The effect of drinks and, temperature on the staining
                Ed




          of a surface penetrating sealant. J Am Dent Assoc. 1993;              of resin composites coated with surface sealants. J Dent Bio-
          124:68-72.                                                            mater. 2014;1:16-22.
 IC
C
@




    28                                                                                              Annali di Stomatologia 2017;VIII (1):23-28
