Long-term effects of simulated gastric juice alternated with brushing on hardness, substance loss, flexural strength and reliability of CAD-CAM monolithic materials.
Journal
Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB
ISSN: 1678-7765
Titre abrégé: J Appl Oral Sci
Pays: Brazil
ID NLM: 101189774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
14
09
2021
accepted:
04
03
2022
entrez:
4
5
2022
pubmed:
5
5
2022
medline:
7
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The purpose of this study is to evaluate, over a simulated 5-year period, the effect of simulated gastric juice alternated with brushing on CAD-CAM monolithic materials considering microhardness, substance loss, flexural strength, and reliability of the materials. Blocks from Lava Ultimate (LU), Vita Enamic (VE), IPS Empress CAD (EMP), IPS e.max CAD (EMAX), and Vita Suprinity (VS) were milled into cylinders and sliced into disks. The EMAX and VS were crystallized, and all specimens were polished with silicon carbide papers and allocated as follows: 1) artificial saliva + brushing or 2) simulated gastric juice (0.113% hydrochloric acid (HCl) solution in deionized water, pH 1.2) + brushing, simulating 1, 3, and 5 years of clinical function. Each year of clinical function was simulated by three repetitions of immersion for 3 hours in artificial saliva or simulated gastric juice followed by 1,217 brushing cycles. The microhardness and substance loss were evaluated at baseline (T0) and at each year by using a Vickers hardness tester and an analytical balance. The biaxial flexural strength (BFS) test was performed in a mechanical testing machine at the end of the 5th year. Weibull modulus was calculated from the BFS data. The microhardness of the LU was not influenced by the treatment, whereas that of the other materials, in certain years, was significantly lower in the gastric juice + brushing groups in comparison with artificial saliva + brushing groups. In general, the materials did not present a significant change in microhardness over time, for either of the treatments. The LU alone showed greater substance loss in the gastric juice + brushing groups for every year. In both treatments, the LU, VE, and EMP exhibited a significant increase in the substance loss over time. The treatment did not affect the BFS of the materials. The gastric juice + brushing decreased the reliability of the VE. All materials were somehow impaired by the gastric juice + brushing in at least one of the evaluated parameters, except for the BFS. However, in a deeper analysis, the LU would be the least indicated materials, followed by VE, for patients with eating disorders.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35507986
pii: S1678-77572022000100422
doi: 10.1590/1678-7757-2021-0536
pmc: PMC9064190
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Saliva, Artificial
0
Dental Porcelain
12001-21-7
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e20210536Références
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1988 Mar;65(3):298-303
pubmed: 3162579
J Prosthet Dent. 2019 Apr;121(4):711.e1-711.e6
pubmed: 30929660
BMC Oral Health. 2018 Jan 8;18(1):5
pubmed: 29321010
Dent Mater. 2016 Nov;32(11):e275-e283
pubmed: 27639808
J Prosthet Dent. 2022 Apr;127(4):659.e1-659.e11
pubmed: 35184887
J Prosthet Dent. 2019 Dec;122(6):567.e1-567.e8
pubmed: 31699448
Eur J Oral Sci. 1996 Apr;104(2 ( Pt 2)):178-90
pubmed: 8804885
J Prosthet Dent. 2017 Jun;117(6):767-774
pubmed: 27836147
J Contemp Dent Pract. 2008 Nov 01;9(7):89-96
pubmed: 18997921
Dent Mater. 2015 Dec;31(12):1445-52
pubmed: 26494266
J Dent Res. 2013 May;92(5):467-71
pubmed: 23569159
J Prosthet Dent. 2022 Mar;127(3):479-488
pubmed: 33504431
Am J Clin Nutr. 1994 Dec;60(6):864-73
pubmed: 7985626
Dent Mater J. 2014;33(3):343-8
pubmed: 24882109
BMC Oral Health. 2014 Jul 29;14:92
pubmed: 25069878
J Appl Oral Sci. 2016 Sep-Oct;24(5):447-452
pubmed: 27812614
J Adv Prosthodont. 2018 Aug;10(4):271-278
pubmed: 30140393
J Prosthet Dent. 2018 Apr;119(4):593-599
pubmed: 28781072
Dent Mater. 2016 Jul;32(7):908-14
pubmed: 27087687
J Prosthet Dent. 2020 Mar;123(3):483-490
pubmed: 31383520
Int J Dent Hyg. 2008 May;6(2):119-22
pubmed: 18412724
Arq Bras Cir Dig. 2019 Dec 20;32(4):e1466
pubmed: 31859919
Oral Implantol (Rome). 2015 Apr 13;7(3):57-70
pubmed: 25992260
J Clin Exp Dent. 2015 Oct 01;7(4):e495-500
pubmed: 26535096
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2015 Mar;55:1-11
pubmed: 26519658
J Prosthodont Res. 2018 Jan;62(1):65-74
pubmed: 28647224
J Prosthet Dent. 2021 Mar;125(3):469.e1-469.e6
pubmed: 33279154
J Oral Sci. 2009 Sep;51(3):443-50
pubmed: 19776513
J Prosthodont. 2019 Feb;28(2):e563-e571
pubmed: 29999570
J Prosthodont. 2017 Jul;26(5):424-431
pubmed: 26682954
J Prosthodont. 2020 Mar;29(3):207-218
pubmed: 29333707
SADJ. 2014 Apr;69(3):106-11
pubmed: 24974480