Effect of a demineralization model on the microhardness, surface roughness and topography of giomers: An in vitro study

Abstract

AbstractThe purpose of this study is to compare the effect of a demineralization model on the microhardness, surface roughness, and topography of giomers.Seventy‐two discs of six different dental materials in three different presentations (pit and fissure sealant (PFS), flowable and restorative materials) were divided into six groups (n = 12 p/g). Three experimental groups (giomers) consisted of BeautiSealant, Beautifil Flow Plus, and Beautifil II, and three control groups (resin‐based materials) were formed using ClinproTM, FiltekTM Z350 XT Flow, and Filtek™ Bulk Fill materials. Vickers microhardness, surface roughness, and topographic analysis with atomic force microscopy were measured at the beginning (0) after four (1) and 7 days (2) of immersion in a demineralizing model. Statistical analysis was performed using One‐way and Repeated Measures ANOVA and Pearson's correlation coefficient (p ≤ .05). The microhardness values showed significant variations, except for the G_RM group. All the groups presented significant increases in roughness through the experiment stages, except for RB_PFS in the Ra parameter. The topographic analysis showed variations in the micromorphology, especially in the experimental group at the end of the demineralization model. Finally, there was no correlation between microhardness and surface roughness. The demineralization model decreased the microhardness, with the lowest reductions in the giomers groups. The effect of the demineralizing model on the surface roughness and topography showed an increase in specific patterns for the experimental and control groups. Therefore, their clinical use is recommended.Research Highlights The demineralization model decreased the microhardness property of the evaluated materials, with better performance for the giomer groups. The effect of the demineralizing model on surface roughness showed an increase with specific patterns for the experimental and control groups. Although the materials presented changes in their microhardness, roughness, and topography, their clinical use is recommended.