Effect of Staining and External Bleaching on the color stability and Surface Roughness of Universal-Shade Resin- Based Composite

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4361175/v1

Aim: This study evaluated the color stability and surface roughness of four universal-shade resin-based composites after staining and external bleaching with 40% hydrogen peroxide.

Methods: Two universal shade resin-based composites and two nanohybrid composites were tested. Twenty disc-shaped specimens from each material were fabricated and divided into two subgroups: one group was stained and bleached (staining group) and the other received bleaching treatment only (control group). The staining group was stained with coffee solution for 24 h. Subsequently, each sample of all four materials was bleached using an in-office bleaching gel using 40% hydrogen peroxide. Color measurements were performed using a spectrophotometer to obtain the International Commission on Illumination parameters, L*; a*; and b*, for each of the following periods: baseline, after bleaching, and two weeks after bleaching for the control group. The staining group was examined at baseline, after staining, after bleaching, and two weeks after bleaching. Surface roughness (Ra) of all the materials after each treatment step were also recorded.

Results: Descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) were used to describe color measurements and surface-roughness values. Two-analysis of variance and one-way analysis of variance were used to compare the mean values of surface roughness, L*, a*, b*, and ΔE values.

Statistically significant differences and clinically acceptable ΔE were observed between all materials during the different stages in color measurements, whereas the surface roughness were significantly different for each study material and treatment mode.

Conclusion: Staining with coffee solution and in-office bleaching produced acceptable color changes. Increased surface roughness values were observed after staining and bleaching the tested resin-based composites.

composite

surface roughness

bleaching

teeth

spectrophotometer

profilometer

Staining and bleaching alter the color of some universal shad composites. This effect can reduce the need for composite replacement after bleaching.

Conventional composite restorations are currently the main restorative materials used by dentists worldwide. They are fabricated in different shades that dentists can use to mimic the shades of the surrounding natural tooth (1). It is challenging to match the color of a composite with that of the surrounding tooth structure, and it depends on environmental and operator-dependent variables (2). The clinical effectiveness of dental composites depends on their physical, chemical, and mechanical features, which are strongly affected by the oral environment and properties of the resin material (3).

Color stability is an important physical feature of composite materials. Color changes can occur due to a variety of etiologic variables, including both extrinsic and intrinsic factors (3). Intrinsic discoloration may arise as a result of a physiomechanical reaction within the material, whereas extrinsic discoloration is defined as the staining of the superficial layer of the resin composite. Extrinsic discoloration is caused by water sorption, smoking, and nutrition habits (4). In addition, the surface roughness of the composites is considered one of the main causes of extrinsic discoloration (5). Surface roughness exceeding 0.2 μm increases the likelihood of biofilm accumulation, which may result in staining and discoloration of the restoration (5,6).

The staining of resin-based composites poses a major drawback, even when composites with different compositions are used. Staining can be caused by colored solutions such as coffee, tea, and chlorhexidine (4). A staining agent can penetrate the superficial layer of a composite. Hence, staining is observed more often in a composite with a greater amount of resin because of the high percentage of water sorption and the presence of microcracks in the resin matrix (7). Discolored composites can be restored via professional cleaning, polishing, and bleaching. In severe cases, replacement is the preferred treatment option (8). Several studies support bleaching with H₂O₂ to remove stains and restore the original color of the composite (9).

Recently, universal composites have been introduced in the market to reduce the need for diverse composite shades in inventory, minimize the wastage of unused composite shades, minimize chairside time, eliminate the need for shade selection, and reduce the reliance on shade-matching procedures. According to the developers, these composites exhibits an enhanced color adjustment potential, defined as the “property that describes and quantifies the interaction between the physical and perceptual components of blending” (10). These materials have a universal opacity and are available in a few Vita shades, which the developers recommend to use in single-shade increments for matching different tooth colors (10). Resin composites generally consist of three main components: the resin matrix (organic content), fillers (inorganic part), and coupling agents (11). The resin matrix of these composites mostly consists of bisphenol A-glycidyl dimethacrylate (Bis-GMA) mixed in different combinations with short-chain monomers, such as trietheneglycol-dimethacrylate (TEGDMA), urethane dimethacrylate (UDMA), and bisphenol A polyethylene glycol diether dimethacrylate (Bis-EMA). The fillers are made of glass, silica, or zirconia in different concentrations and shapes (12–15). Examples of universal composites include Omnichroma and Estilite (Tokuyama Dental), Beautifil (Shofu), Essentia Universal (GC), and Filtek Universal (3M).

In a recent in-vitro study, Wahhab et al. concluded that coffee staining and bleaching using 30% H₂O₂ did not affect the color of Jоyfil nano-hybrid and Оmnichrоma resin-based cоmроsites. This was evidenced by their ΔE values, which were within the acceptable range (ΔE < 3.3)(16). Abdulwahhab et al. evaluated the effects of coffee staining and in-office bleaching with 30% H₂O₂on the surface roughness of Joyfil nano-hybrid and Omnichroma resin-based composites. The results showed that the surface roughness of all groups were within the critical value (Ra < 0.2 μm) for both materials, with no significant difference among the groups (p > 0.05)(15). Additionally, an in vitro study by Fernandes et al. found that bleaching generally did not cause surface roughness, except for one type of composite resin (Opallis), for which bleaching with carbamide peroxide promoted an increase in surface roughness (p = 0.027)(17). Another study by Hafez et al. found that in-office bleaching might eliminate surface stains from composite restorations but would not whiten unstained composites. In addition, surface roughness changes significantly during bleaching; however, the degree of the change varies depending on the composite color and bleaching age (18). Therefore, this in vitro study aimed to assess the color stability and surface roughness of different universal-shade resin-based composite after staining and external bleaching with 40% H₂O₂.

This study has been approved Four composite resin materials were used in this study. Two universal-shade resin based composites were used: Omnichroma (Tokuyama dental, Tokyo, Japan) and Beautifil II enamel (T) (Shofu Dental Corporation, Japan). They were compared with two nanohybrid composites, Tetric n-Ceram (A2) (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) and Filtek Z350 XT (A2) (3M ESPE, St. Paul, USA). Additionally, one staining solution and one in-office bleaching product (Table 1) were used in this study. Specimens of each material were randomly divided into two subgroups of 10 specimens each. One group was subjected to staining and bleaching (staining group), and the other received the bleaching treatment only (control group).

2.1. Specimen preparation:

Twenty disc-shaped (10 mm × 5 mm) specimens were fabricated from each material (N = 80) using a stainless steel mold. Each composite was packed into a mold using a plastic filing instrument. The mold was covered with a celluloid strip and glass plate. The samples were then light-cured using a light-emitting diode (LED) at a power density of approximately 800 mW/cm² for 80 s (3M ESPE Dental Products; Monrovia, CA, USA) from both the top and bottom. The distance between the light source and samples was standardized by placing the tip of the light-cure unit in direct contact with the glass slab. The specimens were directly finished and polished using a diamond finishing bur and Sof-lex discs and stored in distilled water at 37◦ C for 24 h.

2.2. Staining procedure:

Ten discs from each major group (N = 40) were stained with 10 mL of a coffee solution, which was prepared by mixing coffee powder (Nescafé Gold, Nestle, Indonesia) in boiling water according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Subsequently, the specimens were immersed in the coffee solution for 3 h every day at room temperature for a test period of 2 weeks. The staining solution was changed every day. After each staining session, the specimens were gently rinsed and stored in artificial saliva until the following day. After the staining sessions were completed, surface roughness and color stability measurements were recorded.

2.3. Bleaching Procedure

In-office bleaching was performed on each sample in the four groups using an in-office bleaching gel containing 40% H₂O₂. After activating the syringe, the bleaching gel was applied in equal amounts for 45 min in three cycles, with each cycle lasting 15 min, according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Light rinsing was performed to eliminate the bleaching material via air drying after each cycle. After bleaching, the specimens were stored in distilled water until color measurements were performed.

2.4. Color Measurement

The color of the specimens was measured at three time points for the control group (baseline, after bleaching, and 2 weeks after bleaching) and at four time points for the staining group (baseline, after staining, after bleaching, and 2 weeks after bleaching). The color measurements were conducted using a VITA Easyshade V sрectrорhоtometer (VITA Zahnfabrik, Bad Sackingen, Germany). The device was calibrated and used according to the manufacturer's instructions. Color measurements were recorded after the probe tip (Easyshade) was placed perpendicular to the center of the specimens. The L*, a*, and b* coordinates of the CIE system were recorded for each specimen. The L* coordinate represents color lightness, varying from white to black. The a* and b* coordinates represent the chroma of the color with the axes ranging from green to red and blue to yellow, respectively. C * is another parameter called the metric chroma, and it is given by the equation C* = (a² + b²)^1/2. ΔE₀₀ values were then calculated using the following formula shown in Figure 1:

2.5. Evaluation of Surface Roughness

The surface roughness (Ra) of the specimens was measured after each treatment step, including baseline, staining, and bleaching, for all groups. Characterization and imaging were performed using a Contour GT-K 3D Optical Microscope (Bruker®) and via 3D non-contact surface metrology and interferometry. Each sample was scanned at three equidistant positions at three intervals and the average surface roughness (Ra) was determined.

2.6. Statistical Analysis:

Data were analyzed using the SPSS software (version 26.0; IBM, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) were used to describe the surface-roughness values and the L*, a*, and b* coordinates of the color measurements. The two-way analysis of variance followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison test was used to compare the mean surface roughness Ra, L*, a*, b*, and ΔE values at different experiment stages for the four study materials. A p-value of less than or equal to 0.05 was used to determine the statistical significance.

3.1. color difference results

Table 2 shows the mean and standard deviation of the color parameters in the CIELab systems for each material from the control and staining groups at the study stages. The L* values decrease for all the materials after staining and increase after bleaching.

Figure 2 shows the mean and standard deviation of the color differences (∆E00) observed between different study stages for each material in the staining group. Beautifil exhibits the highest ∆E00 after staining (p < 0.001 for all materials), followed by Filtek, Omnichroma, and Tetric N-Ceram. After bleaching, Filtek exhibits the highest ∆E00 value, followed by Beautifil, Tetric N-Ceram, and Omnichroma. Two weeks after bleaching, the ∆E00 values decreases for all materials, with Omnichroma showing the highest values. Statistically significant differences were observed between all materials at the different stages of the study.

Figure 3 shows the mean and standard deviation of the color differences (∆E00) observed between different study stages for each material in the control group. All materials exhibit comparable ∆E00 values after bleaching and two weeks after bleaching. Tetric and Omnichroma exhibit the highest values of 0.7342 and 0.5179 after bleaching and two weeks after bleaching, respectively. Statistically significant differences were observed between all materials at the different stages of the study.

3.2. Surface roughness

The two-way analysis of variance was performed for comparing the average surface roughness at the different stages of the experiment (baseline, staining, bleaching (control) and bleaching (staining)) for the four study materials (Beautifil, Filtek, Omnichroma, and Teric N-Ceram). The results showed a highly statistically significant difference in the mean values for the overall model ( F = 5.401, p < 0.0001), type of material (F = 8.699, p < 0.0001), type of treatment (F = 11.218, p < 0.0001) and for the interaction term (type of material * type of treatment) ( F = 2.076, p = 0.034). This indicated that the surface roughness values were significantly different for each study material and treatment.

One-way analysis of variance was performed for comparing the average surface roughness across the different stages of the experiment for the four study materials. The results showed a highly statistically significant difference between the Filtek (F=10.836, p<0.0001) and Omnichroma materials (F = 7.629, p<0.0001). Multiple comparisons of the average surface roughness revealed that, after the bleaching (staining) treatment, the mean surface roughness of the Filtek material after the bleaching (staining) treatment was significantly higher than that observed after the other three treatments. There was no difference in the mean surface roughness among the pairs for the three treatments (baseline, staining, and bleaching (control)). The mean surface roughness of the Omnichroma material after the bleaching treatment in both staining and control groups was significantly higher than the mean values obtained using the baseline and staining treatments. There was no significant difference in the mean values between the baseline and staining treatments. Additionally, no significant difference was observed in the mean values between bleaching (staining) and bleaching (control) treatments. However, the mean surface roughness values were not statistically significantly different across the four treatments for the Beautifil and Teric N-Ceram materials (Table 3).

We compared the mean surface roughness of the four types of materials at each stage of the experiment (Baseline, Staining, Bleaching(control), and Bleaching(staining)). The results showed a highly statistically significant difference at baseline (F = 6479, p = 0.001), after staining (F = 3.160, p = 0.036), and after bleaching (baseline) (F = 3.939, p = 0.016). The multiple comparison of mean surface roughness showed that at baseline, the mean surface roughness of three materials, Beautifil, Omnichroma, and Teric N-ceram, was significantly higher than the mean surface roughness of Filtek. Additionally, there was no difference in the mean values between the pairs of these three materials. For the staining treatment, the multiple comparisons of mean values did not show any significant differences for any pair of the four study materials. After the bleaching (baseline) treatment, the mean surface roughness of the Omnichroma material was significantly higher than that of the Filtek material and was not significantly different from the mean surface roughness of the other two materials (Beautifil and Teric N-Ceram). There were no differences in the mean surface roughness between any pair of Filtek, Beautifil, and Teric N-Ceram. However, the mean surface roughness values were not significantly different among the four types of materials used for the bleaching (staining) treatment (Table 4).

The present study evaluated the color stability and surface roughness of two universal-shade resin-based composites with respect to those of nanohybrid conventional composites after staining with a coffee solution and external bleaching with 40% H₂O₂. The effect of bleaching materials on both the morphology and surface texture of resin-based composite materials should be considered, as it is a routine treatment in common dental practice.

Coffee was selected as the staining solution because it is one of the most frequently consumed beverages (19). Moreover, it has a substantial staining effect on both composites and natural teeth (18). Coffee discoloration is caused by both the adsorption and absorption of colorants by resin-based restorative products, according to another study (20). According to the data provided by the manufacturers, the resin-based composites used in the present study differed in the size and percentage of the inorganic fillers, in addition to the type of organic matrix. The overall weight percentages of the inorganic fillers tested in this study increased in the following order: Filtek > Tetric N-ceram > Omnichroma > Beautifil. Filtek has an average filler size of 0.6 µm with 60% volume, while Tetric N-Ceram has a particle size in the range of 0.04–3 μm with 56% filler volume. Omnichroma has an average fillers size of 0.3 μm with 68% volume. Beautifil has fillers 10–20 nm in size and a load of 83.3%. Filtek contains Bis-GMA, UDMA, and Bis-EMA. Omnichroma contains 1,6(methacryl ethyloxycarbonylamino), UDMA, and TEGDMA. Tetric N-Ceram uses Bis-GMA, Bis-EMA, and TEGDMA as resin matrices. Beautifil contains Bis-GMA and TEGDMA. Bis-GMA and UDMA play essential roles in controlling the susceptibility of the materials to staining (21).

The CIE Lab color system is known for its international validity, ease of use, and superior reliability. It describes the color in three coordinates: L*, a*, and b* represent color lightness, chroma in red-green direction, and chroma in yellow-blue direction, respectively. These coordinates are calculated either manually or using computer program through the aforementioned formula to produce ΔE* values. In 2001, the CIE recommended its most recently discovered formula for color difference, CIEDE2000 (ΔE₀₀), which is recognized as the ISO/CIE (ISO IOS-J03) standard (22). Most researchers agree that the CIEDE2000 formula reflects the color differences perceived by the human eye more efficiently than the classical CIE Lab formula. When the ΔE value is detected as 0, it indicates the absence of color change between the compared samples. If ΔE is between 0 and 3.2 indicates a change in color. However, this change is undetectable visually and might be clinically acceptable. Further, if ΔE is 3.3 and above, the change is detectable visually and might be considered unacceptable (22).

In agreement with previous studies (16,21), there were statistically significant differences between all materials during the different stages of this study. In the staining group, Beautifil exhibited the highest ∆E00 after staining among all the materials, whereas Filtek exhibited the highest ∆E00 after bleaching. Other studies have reported that Filtek exhibited the least color change. This may be because of the different bleaching materials and techniques used in the current and previous studies (23). For two weeks after bleaching, Omnichroma recorded the highest ∆E00 values. In the control group, all materials exhibited comparable ∆E00 both after bleaching and two weeks after bleaching,

The findings from the staining group indicated that all materials exhibited higher ΔE values after the staining procedure than the acceptable color change range (ΔE < 3.3), except for Tetric-N-Ceram, which exhibited a ΔE of 2.7. After bleaching the staining group, only Omnichroma and Filtek exhibited ΔE values higher than the clinically acceptable range of color change (ΔE < 3.3). Two weeks after bleaching, all materials showed ΔE values less than the acceptable color-change values. All materials in the control group showed ΔE values less than the acceptable range of color change (ΔE <3.3) in both stages (after bleaching and two weeks after bleaching).

The surface roughness of resin-based composites is considered the main factor causing extrinsic discoloration (5,24–27). Surface roughness (Ra) was measured in micrometers. A surface roughness of 0.2 µm is the critical value. A surface roughness exceeding 0.2 µm is considered clinically relevant as this may increase the risk of biofilm accumulation, gingival inflammation, and extrinsic discoloration (28).

The present study showed that the surface roughness of Omnichroma and Tetric-N-Ceram exceeded 0.2 µm in all four subgroups (type of treatment). The surface roughness of Beautifil II exceeded 0.2 µm after bleaching in both staining and control groups. The mean surface roughness of Filtek surpassed 0.2 µm after bleaching in the staining group only. The differences between the mean values for the Filtek (F = 10.836, p < 0.0001) and Omnichroma materials (F = 7.629, p < 0.0001) were statistically significant. The difference between the mean surface-roughness values of Beautifil and Tetric-N-Ceram were not statistically significantly across the four subgroups (4 types of treatments).

The staining resistance of resin-based restorations in the oral environment is a crucial requirement for withstanding the exposure to saliva, food, and drinks, which are common extrinsic factors that lead to the discoloration of dental restorations (29). The results of our study are in agreement with those reported by Peng et al., who reported that the surface roughness of Filtek Z350 increased after bleaching in the Tetric N-Ceram group. However, this increase was not statistically significant (30). By contrast, another study concluded that the mean surface roughness values (Ra) of all sub-groups of Omnichroma did not exceed the critical limits (Ra < 0.2 μm)(15). This controversial result may be attributed to the percentage of H₂O₂ in the bleaching material used in the present study (31). Wilder et al found that, compared to dry polishing, wet polishing resulted in greater surface roughness, which may be another reason for this controversy (32).

This study has several limitations. The study samples were immersed in a particular type of staining beverage, which may not accurately reflect the staining potential of commonly consumed foods and beverages. However, as this was an in vitro study, it was difficult to accurately duplicate oral environments because food and beverage consumption is a dynamic process that does not allow for continuous static stain-retention in the oral cavity. Therefore, the in vitro effects of staining and bleaching on the surface roughness of restorative materials in vitro may differ from the in vivo effects. The effects of aging were not tested in this study. Hence, additional investigations are advised to assess the effect of aging on the color stability of the restorations. Further research on the effects of aging, occlusal stress, and clinical circumstances is warranted.

Within the limitations of the present study, we concluded that staining with coffee solution and bleaching with 40% H₂O₂ produced acceptable color changes. In addition, variations in surface roughness were observed after staining and bleaching the tested resin-based composites.

6.1. Ethics approval and consent to participate:

This study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB Project No. E-22-7075), College of Medicine, King Saud University and the College of Dentistry Research Center (CDRC No. IR 0428), King Saud University.

6.2. Consent for publication:

Not applicable

6.3. Availability of data and materials:

Data presented in this research are available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author

6.4. Competing interests:

The authors declares no competing intrest.

6.5. Funding:

No funding was received for this study.

6.6. Authors' contributions:

All authors contributed equally in formulating and writing this study.

6.7. Acknowledgements

NA

Brown KM. POST-ORTHODONTIC RESTORATIVE SOLUTION: Conservative Techniques with Direct Composite Bonding. [Internet]. 2020 [citat 2 mai 2023].
Alhamdan EM, Bashiri A, Alnashmi F, Al-Saleh S, Al-Shahrani K, Al-Shahrani S, et al. Evaluation of Smart Chromatic Technology for a Single-Shade Dental Polymer Resin: An In Vitro Study. Appl Sci 2021, Vol 11, Page 10108 [Internet]. 28 octombrie 2021 [citat 3 iulie 2022];11(21):10108.
Ahmed MA, Jouhar R, Vohra F. Effect of Different pH Beverages on the Color Stability of Smart Monochromatic Composite. Appl Sci. 1 mai 2022;12(9).
Shamszadeh S, Sheikh-Al-Eslamian SM, Hasani E, Abrandabadi AN, Panahandeh N. Color stability of the bulk-fill composite resins with different thickness in response to coffee/water immersion. Int J Dent. 2016;2016.
Jaramillo-Cartagena R, López-Galeano EJ, Latorre-Correa F, Agudelo-Suárez AA. Effect of Polishing Systems on the Surface Roughness of Nano-Hybrid and Nano-Filling Composite Resins: A Systematic Review. Dent J 2021, Vol 9, Page 95 [Internet]. 12 august 2021 [citat 26 iulie 2022];9(8):95.
Lucia Schmitt V, Maria Puppin-Rontani R, Scarparo Naufel F, Pardo Salata Nahsan F, Alexandre Coelho Sinhoreti M, Baseggio W. Effect of the Polishing Procedures on Color Stability and Surface Roughness of Composite Resins. 2011;2011.
Mundim FM, Garcia L da FR, Pires-de-Souza F de CP. Effect of staining solutions and repolishing on color stability of direct composites. J Appl Oral Sci [Internet]. 2010 [citat 26 iulie 2022];18(3):249-54.
Türkün LŞ, Türkün M. Effect of Bleaching and Repolishing Procedures on Coffee and Tea Stain Removal from Three Anterior Composite Veneering Materials. J Esthet Restor Dent [Internet]. 1 septembrie 2004 [citat 26 iulie 2022];16(5):290-301.
Mohamed RA, Bubteina NH, Betamar NM, Osman EZ. Effect of Staining and Bleaching on Color Change of Resin Composite Restorative Materials. Libyan J Dent [Internet]. 2022 [citat 26 iulie 2022];6(2):27-35.
de Abreu JLB, Sampaio CS, Benalcázar Jalkh EB, Hirata R. Analysis of the color matching of universal resin composites in anterior restorations. J Esthet Restor Dent [Internet]. 1 martie 2021 [citat 3 mai 2023];33(2):269-76.
Ferracane JL. Resin composite—State of the art. Dent Mater. 1 ianuarie 2011;27(1):29-38.
Roeters JJM, Shortall ACC, Opdam NJM. Can a single composite resin serve all purposes? Br Dent J 2005 1992 [Internet]. 23 iulie 2005 [citat 26 iulie 2022];199(2):73-9.
Zimmerli DB. Composite materials: Composition, properties and clinical applications A Literature Review.
Mitra SB, Wu D, Holmes BN. An application of nanotechnology in advanced dental materials. J Am Dent Assoc. 1 octombrie 2003;134(10):1382-90.
Abdulwahhab ZS, Alkhalidi EF. Effect of Staining and Bleaching on Surface Roughness of Different Nano Hybrid Resin Composite Materials. Al-Rafidain Dent J [Internet]. 1 martie 2021 [citat 3 mai 2023];21(1):42-50.
Wahhab ZSA, Alkhalidi EF. Color Change of Two Different Nano-Hybrid Resin Cоmроsite Materials after Staining and Bleaching. (An in vitro Study). Medico-legal Updat. 2021;
Fernandes RA, Strazzi-Sahyon HB, Suzuki TYU, Briso ALF, Santos PH dos. Effect of dental bleaching on the microhardness and surface roughness of sealed composite resins. Restor Dent Endod [Internet]. 4 februarie 2020 [citat 1 august 2022];45(1).
Hafez R, Ahmed D, Yousry M, El-Badrawy W, El-Mowafy O. Effect of in-office bleaching on color and surface roughness of composite restoratives. Eur J Dent [Internet]. aprilie 2010 [citat 1 august 2022];4(2):118-27.
Gül P, Harorli OT, Akgül N, Gündoğdu M. Effect of different bleaching applications on the surface properties and staining susceptibility of dental composites. J Wuhan Univ Technol Mater Sci Ed [Internet]. 1 iunie 2016 [citat 3 mai 2023];31(3):677-83.
Um CM, I E Ruyter. Staining of resin-based veneering materials with coffee and tea - PubMed [Internet]. [citat 3 mai 2023].
Peng PW, Huang CF, Hsu CY, Chen A, Ng HH, Cheng MS, et al. Color Stability and Staining Susceptibility of Direct Resin-Based Composites after Light-Activated In-Office Bleaching. Polymers (Basel) [Internet]. 1 septembrie 2021 [citat 1 august 2022];13(17).
AlHabdan A, AlShamrani A, AlHumaidan R, AlFehaid A, Eisa S. Color Matching of Universal Shade Resin-Based Composite with Natural Teeth and Its Stability before and after In-Office Bleaching. Int J Biomater. 2022;2022.
Rao YM, Srilakshmi V, Vinayagam KK, Narayanan LL. An evaluation of the color stability of tooth-colored restorative materials after bleaching using CIELAB color technique. Indian J Dent Res [Internet]. 1 ianuarie 2009 [citat 3 mai 2023];20(1):60-4.
Ereifej NS, Oweis YG, Eliades G. The effect of polishing technique on 3-D surface roughness and gloss of dental restorative resin composites. Oper Dent [Internet]. 2013 [citat 3 mai 2023];38(1).
Chiang YC, Lai EHH, Kunzelmann KH. Polishing mechanism of light-initiated dental composite: Geometric optics approach. J Formos Med Assoc. 1 decembrie 2016;115(12):1053-60.
Jefferies SR. Abrasive Finishing and Polishing in Restorative Dentistry: A State-of-the-Art Review. Dent Clin North Am. 1 aprilie 2007;51(2):379-97.
Chour R, Moda A, Arora A, Arafath M, Shetty V, Rishal Y. Comparative evaluation of effect of different polishing systems on surface roughness of composite resin: An in vitro study. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent [Internet]. 1 august 2016 [citat 3 mai 2023];6(Suppl 2):S166-70.
Telang A, Narayana IH, Madhu KS, Kalasaiah D, Ramesh P, Nagaraja S. Effect of Staining and Bleaching on Color stability and Surface Roughness of Three Resin Composites: An in vitro study. Contemp Clin Dent [Internet]. 1 iulie 2018 [citat 3 mai 2023];9(3):452-6.
Karadas M, Alkurt M, Duymus Z. Effects of hydrogen peroxide-based mouthwashes on color changes of stained direct composite resins. J Restor Dent [Internet]. 2016 [citat 3 mai 2023];4(1):11.
Kaya S, Özel Bektaş Ö. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal Effect of in-Office Bleaching on the Surface Roughness of Different Composite Resins #. Cumhur Dent J. 2022;25:78-82.
Sulieman M, Addy M, MacDonald E, Rees JS. The effect of hydrogen peroxide concentration on the outcome of tooth whitening: an in vitro study. J Dent. 1 mai 2004;32(4):295-9.
Wilder AD, Swift EJ, May KN, Thompson JY, McDougal RA. Effect of finishing technique on the microleakage and surface texture of resin-modified glass ionomer restorative materials. J Dent. 1 iunie 2000;28(5):367-73.

Table.1: Description of materials used in this study.

Materials	Composition	Brand Name & Manufacture	Batch number
OMNICHROMA	UDMA, TEGDMA Uniform sized supra-nano spherical filler (260 nm spherical SiO2 -ZrO2 ) Composite filler (include 260 nm spherical SiO2 -ZrO2 ) Filler loading 79 wt% (68 vol%)	Tokuyama Dental, Japan	025E71
FILTEK z350 xt (A2)	BIS-GMA (Bisphenol A diglycidyl ether dimethacrylate), UDMA (urethane dimethacrylate), and Bis-EMA (Bisphenol A polyethylene glycol diether dimethacrylate).	3M ESPE, St. Paul, USA	7018A1B
BEAUTIFIL II enamel (T)	filler particles that are derived from S-PRG (Surface Pre-reacted Glass Ionomer) technology.	Shofu Dental Corporation, Japan	122109
Tetric-N-Ceram (A2)	Barium glass fillers and ytterbium trifluoride.	Ivoclar Vivadent,Schaan, Liechtenstein	4604036AN
Opalescence bleaching	40% Hydrogen peroxide	Ultradent Products, Inc USA	1007186.1

Table 2. Mean (standard deviation) color parameters in the CIELAB system for specimens of each material at different study stages.

Material

baseline

staining

After bleaching

(control)

After bleaching

(staining)

2 weeks After bleaching

(control)

2 weeks After bleaching

(staining)

Beautifil

L*

a*

b*

53.650 (0.389)

-3.212 (0.068)

-5.6585 (0.202)

50.55 (0.601)

-3.148 (0.222)

1.303 (0.982)

53.420 (0.585)

-3.002 (0.071)

-6.126 (0.162)

52.42 (0.374)

-2.894 (0.152)

-2.102 (0.691)

53.134 (0.621)

-2.777 (0.066)

-6.363 (0.152)

52.601 (0.399)

-2.91 (0.145)

-3.31(0.585)

Filtek

L*

a*

b*

61.547 (0.363)

-2.508 (0.055)

0.917 (0.190)

58.493 (0.851)

-2.767 (0.127)

8.027 (3.24)

61.669 (0.476)

-2.412 (0.065)

1.227 (0.168)

61 (1.149)

-2.357 (0.101)

3.849 (1.736)

61.5 (0.396)

-2.551 (0.048)

1.222 (0.164)

59.646 (0.632)

-2.385 (0.076)

4.108 (1.633)

Omnichroma

L*

a*

b*

54.213 (0.497)

-0.718 (0.108)

5.9158 (0.260)

52.706 (0.381)

-0.495 (0.177)

10.013 (1.000)

54.535 (0.447)

-0.534 (0.111)

5.526 (0.229)

53.39 (0.456)

-0.2633 (0.146)

-0.263 (0.604)

55.111 (0.492)

-0.582 (0.124)

5.369 (0.231)

54.487 (0.355)

-0.402 (0.098)

6.75 (0.537)

Tetric

L*

a*

b*

56.504 (0.310)

-1.738 (0.052)

4.967 (0.167)

54.915 (0.462)

-1.710 (0.159)

7.937 (1.122)

57.222 (0.343)

-1.79 (0.055)

4.596 (0.162)

56.385 (0.238)

-1.661 (0.093)

6.001 (0.702)

56.994 (0.498)

-1.794 (0.0473)

4.033 (0.148)

56.822 (0.199)

-1.613 (0.084)

5.318 (0.564)

Table 3: Comparison of mean values of surface roughness among different stages of the experiment in each of the four study materials

Type of Material	Type of Treatment	Mean	Std. Deviation	F-value	p-value
Beautifil II enamel	Baseline	1.95	.88
	Staining	1.98	.98	0.620	0.606
	Bleaching (control)	2.40	1.06
	Bleaching (Staining)	1.99	.59
Filtek Z350 xt	Baseline	1.42	.44
	Staining	1.43	.36	10.836	<0.0001^*
	Bleaching (control)	1.75	.36
	Bleaching (Staining)	2.67	1.07
Omnichroma	Baseline	2.04	.39
	Staining	2.13	.43	7.629	<0.0001^*
	Bleaching (control)	2.91	.90
	Bleaching (Staining)	2.83	.63
Teric N-Ceram	Baseline	2.14	.38
	Staining	2.13	.35	2.255	0.095
	Bleaching (control)	2.42	.45
	Bleaching (Staining)	2.53	.66

* Statistically significant difference.

Table 4: Comparison of mean values of surface roughness among the four types of materials for each different stages of the experiment.

Type of Treatment	Type of Material	Mean	Std. Deviation	F-value	p-value
Baseline	Beautifil	1.95	.88
	Filtek	1.42	.44	6.479	0.001*
	Omnichroma	2.04	.39
	Teric N-Ceram	2.14	.38
Staining	Beautifil	1.98	.98
	Filtek	1.43	.36	3.160	0.036*
	Omnichroma	2.13	.43
	Teric N-Ceram	2.13	.35
Bleaching (control)	Beautifil	2.40	1.06
	Filtek	1.75	.36	3.939	0.016*
	Omnichroma	2.91	.90
	Teric N-Ceram	2.42	.45
Bleaching (Staining)	Beautifil	1.99	.59
	Filtek	2.67	1.07	2.239	0.100
	Omnichroma	2.83	.63
	Teric N-Ceram	2.53	.66

* Statistically significant difference.

No competing interests reported.

Effect of Staining and External Bleaching on the color stability and Surface Roughness of Universal-Shade Resin- Based Composite

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Clinical Significance

1. Introduction

2. Materials and Methods

2.2. Staining procedure:

2.3. Bleaching Procedure

3. Results

4. Discussion

5. Conclusion

6. Declarations

References

Tables

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1