Manuel ve Elektrikli Diş Fırçalamanın Rezin ve Cam İyonomer Esaslı Farklı Restoratif Materyallerin Yüzey Pürüzlülüğünün Değişimi Üzerine Olan Etkileri: Bir İn Vitro Çalışma

Amaç: Bu çalışma, manuel ve elektrikli diş fırçalamanın farklı rezin esaslı ve cam iyonomer esaslı restoratif materyallerin yüzey pürüzlülüğüne olan etkilerinin karşılaştırmalı olarak değerlendirilmesini sunmayı amaçlamıştır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Dört farklı restoratif materyale ait (rezin, kompomer, yüksek vizkoziteli cam iyonomer ve geleneksel cam iyonomer esaslı materyaller) 160 adet restoratif materyal diskleri hazırlanmıştır. Her gruba ait örneklerin yarısı manuel, diğer yarısı da elektrikli fırça ile fırçalanmıştır. Fırçalama öncesi ve sonrası yüzey pürüzlülük değerleri (Ra) ölçülmüş, kaydedilmiş ve pürüzlülük değişim (ΔRa) değerleri istatistiksel olarak analiz edilmiştir. İstatistiksel karşılaştırmalarda, Student t-test, Mann-Whitney U ve Kruskal-Wallis H testleri kullanılmıştır. İstatistiksel anlamlılık düzeyi %5 olarak alınmıştır. Bulgular: Hem manuel hem de elektrikli fırçalamadan sonra, tüm restoratif materyallerde, yüzey pürüzlülüğünde artış bulunmuş ancak restoratif materyaller arasında pürüzlülük artışı açısından istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir farklılık tespit edilmemiştir (p>0,05). Ayrıca, restoratif materyallerin yüzey pürüzlülüğü artışı açısından, manuel ve elektrikli fırçalama arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir farklılık tespit edilmemiştir (p>0,05). Sonuç: Hem manuel hem de elektrikli fırçalama sonrası, yüzey pürüzlülüğü artışı açısından restoratif materyallerin birbirlerine üstünlüğünün ya da dezavantajının olmadığı sonucuna varılmıştır. Ayrıca, elektrikli fırçalamanın manuel fırçalamaya oranla ekstra pürüzlülük yaratmamış olması ve sunduğu diğer avantajlar göz önüne alınarak, çocuklarda oral hijyenin sağlanmasında elektrikli fırçaların kullanımı önerilebilir.

The Effects of Manual and Powered Brushing with a Tooth Brush on Surface Roughness Alteration of Different Resin and Glass Ionomer-based Restorative Materials: An In Vitro Study

Objective: This study aimed to present a comparative evaluation of the effects ofmanual and powered brushing with a tooth brush on surface roughness of differentresin and glass ionomer-based restorative materials.Materials and Methods: A total of 160 discs were prepared from four differentrestorative materials (resin, compomer, high-viscosity glass ionomer andconventional glass ionomer-based materials). Half of the specimens from eachgroup were brushed manually, and the other half were power-brushed. The surfaceroughness (Ra) values before and after brushing (ΔRa) were measured, recordedand statistically analysed. Student’s t-test, Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-WallisH tests were used for statistical comparisons. The statistical significance level wasdetermined as 5%.Results: An increase in the surface roughness was observed in all restorativematerials after manual and powered brushing. However, no statistically significantdifference was observed among the different restorative materials in terms of theincrease in roughness (p>0.05). Additionally, no statistically significant differencewas found between manual and electric brushing in terms of the increase in surfaceroughness of the restorative materials (p>0.05).Conclusion: The restorative materials examined in this study did not have anysuperiority or disadvantage over each other in terms of the increase in surfaceroughness after manual and powered brushing. In addition, as powered brushingdoes not lead to extra roughness compared with manual brushing and owing toits other advantages, the use of powered toothbrushes can be recommended forimproving oral hygiene in children.

PDF

___

1. Mahoney E, Kilpatrick N, Johnston T. Restorative paediatric dentistry. In: Cameron AC, Widmer RP, editors. Handbook of pediatric dentistry. Mosby: Maryland Heights, 2008: 71-93.
2. Rodrigues JA, Casagrande L, Araújo FB, Lenzi TL, Mariath AAS. Restorative Materials in Pediatric Dentistry. In: Coelho Leal S, Takeshita Eliana, editors. Pediatric Restorative Dentistry. Porto Alegre: Springer, 2019: 161-7.
3. Petersen PE. The World Oral Health Report 2003: continuous improvement of oral health in the 21st century--the approach of the WHO Global Oral Health Programme. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2003; 31: 3-23.
4. dos Santos AP, Nadanovsky P, de Oliveira BH. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of fluoride toothpastes on the prevention of dental caries in the primary dentition of preschool children. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2013; 41: 1-12.
5. Yildirim S, Uslu YS. Effects of different pediatric drugs and toothbrushing on color change of restorative materials used in pediatric dentistry. Niger J Clin Pract 2020; 23: 610-8.
6. Olegário IC, Malagrana APVFP, Kim SSH, Hesse D, Tedesco TK, Calvo AFB, et al. Mechanical Properties of High-Viscosity Glass Ionomer Cement and Nanoparticle Glass Carbomer. J Nanomat 2015; 2015: 1-4.
7. Frencken JE. The art and science of Minimal lntervention Dentistry and Atraumatic Restorative Treatment. 1st ed. Comberton: Orleton; 2018.
8. BaniHani A, Gardener C, Raggio DP, Santamaría RM, Albadri S. Could COVID-19 change the way we manage caries in primary teeth? Current implications on Paediatric Dentistry. Int J Paediatr Dent 2020; 30: 523-5.
9. Bulut M, Yıldırım S, Ulukapı I. Diş Macunları ve Fluor. In: Menteş A, editör. Diş Hekimliğinde Fluor. 1. Baskı. Ankara: Türkiye Klinikleri, 2020: 42-7.
10. Loitongbam M, Mohan R, Chowdhary Z, Mehrotra S. Comparative evaluation of tooth surface roughness caused by three different powered toothbrushes and a novel manual toothbrush -An SEM and AFM study. Indian J Dent Res 2020; 31: 743-51.
11. Monteiro B, Spohr AM. Surface Roughness of Composite Resins after Simulated Toothbrushing with Different Dentifrices. J Int Oral Health 2015; 7: 1-5.
12. Rios D, Honôrio HM, de Araújo PA, Machado MA. Wear and superficial roughness of glass ionomer cements used as sealants, after simulated toothbrushing. Pesqui Odontol Bras 2002; 16: 343-8.
13. Dudás C, Forgó Z, Kerekes-Máthé B. Surface Roughness Changes of Different Restoration Materials after Tooth Brushing Simulation Using Different Toothpastes. Journal of Interdisciplinary Medicine 2017; 2: 21-4.
14. Stovell AG, Newton BM, Lynch RJ. Important considerations in the development of toothpaste formulations for children. Int Dent J 2013; 63: 57-63.
15. Bollen CM, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature. Dent Mater 1997; 13: 258-69.
16. Abouelatta OB, Abdel-Samad AA, Sakrana AA. Wear and surface roughness of current veneered materials after toothbrush/ dentifrice abrasion. J Mater Proc Tech 2005; 168: 431-7.
17. Avinash J, Singh A, Singh DK. Powered Toothbrush vs Manual Toothbrush: Generation X of Mechanical Plaque Control. Int J Prev Clin Dent Res 2017; 4: 122-32.
18. Davidovich E, Ccahuana-Vasquez RA, Timm H, Grender J, Cunningham P, Zini A. Randomised clinical study of plaque removal efficacy of a power toothbrush in a paediatric population. Int J Paediatr Dent 2017; 27: 558-67.
19. Durhan MA, Uluakay M, Kargül B. The Plaque Removal Effectiveness of Powered and Manual Tooth Brush in Children: A Pilot Study. Cumhuriyet Dent J 2018; 21: 327-34.
20. García-Godoy F, Marcushamer M, Cugini M, Warren PR. The safety and efficacy of a children’s power toothbrush and a manual toothbrush in 6-11 year-olds. Am J Dent 2001; 14: 195-9.
21. Grossman E, Proskin H. A comparison of the efficacy and safety of an electric and a manual children’s toothbrush. J Am Dent Assoc 1997; 128: 469-74.
22. Krithikadatta J, Gopikrishna V, Datta M. CRIS Guidelines (Checklist for Reporting In-vitro Studies): A concept note on the need for standardized guidelines for improving quality and transparency in reporting in-vitro studies in experimental dental research. J Conserv Dent 2014; 17: 301-4.
23. Deinzer R, Cordes O, Weber J, Hassebrauck L, Weik U, Krämer N, et al. Toothbrushing behavior in children - an observational study of toothbrushing performance in 12 year olds. BMC Oral Health 2019; 19: 68.
24. Marinho VC, Higgins JP, Sheiham A, Logan S. Fluoride toothpastes for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003; (1): CD002278.
25. Ashwin R, Arathi R. Comparative evaluation for microleakage between Fuji-VII glass ionomer cement and light-cured unfilled resin: a combined in vivo in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2007; 25: 86-7.
26. Peng Y, Stark PC, Rich A Jr, Loo CY. Marginal microleakage of triage sealant under different moisture contamination. Pediatr Dent 2011; 33: 203-6.
27. Penick C. Power toothbrushes: a critical review. Int J Dent Hyg 2004; 2: 40-4.
28. Ng C, Tsoi JKH, Lo ECM, Matinlinna AJP. Safety and Design Aspects of Powered Toothbrush-A Narrative Review. Dent J (Basel) 2020; 8: 15.
29. Yousaf A, Aman N, Manzoor MA, Yasmin R. Comparison of powered and manual toothbrushes in removal of plaque. Pakistan Oral&Dental Journal 2012; 32: 120-3.
30. García-Carrillo A, Jover A, Plá R, Martorell A, Sota C, GómezMoreno G, et al. Manual versus sonic powered toothbrushing in patients with intellectual disability: a cluster-randomized clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol 2016; 43: 684-93.
31. Hunter ML, Addy M, Pickles MJ, Joiner A. The role of toothpastes and toothbrushes in the aetiology of tooth wear. Int Dent J 2002; 52: 399-405.
32. Schemehorn BR, Moore MH, Putt MS. Abrasion, polishing, and stain removal characteristics of various commercial dentifrices in vitro. J Clin Dent 2011; 22: 11-8.
33. Pala K, Tekçe N, Karakuyu H, Özel E. İki farklı diş macununun farklı restoratif materyallerin yüzey pürüzlülüğü üzerine etkisi. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi 2016; 26: 399-406.
34. Mondelli RF, Wang L, Garcia FC, Prakki A, Mondelli J, Franco EB, et al. Evaluation of weight loss and surface roughness of compomers after simulated toothbrushing abrasion test. J Appl Oral Sci 2005; 13: 131-5.
35. Ashkenazi M, Bidoosi M, Levin L. Factors associated with reduced compliance of children to dental preventive measures. Odontology 2012; 100: 241-8.