Abstract
Background
Microhardness and surface roughness are essential mechanical properties to assess the clinical performance and longevity of dental materials. The newer Pedo shade nanocomposite is developed for use in pediatric dentistry for strip crowns used in severely decayed primary anterior teeth. The main aim of the study was to assess and compare the microhardness and surface roughness of the newly developed Pedo shade nanocomposite with the conventional composite material.
Materials and methods
A total of 60 composite disk specimens were fabricated using standardized Teflon molds and divided into two groups (n = 30): group A (pediatric-shade nanocomposite) and group B (conventional nanocomposite). Baseline microhardness and surface roughness values were recorded after 24 hours of storage in artificial saliva. Specimens were then immersed in fresh milk for 1 hour daily over 14 days. Microhardness was reassessed on day 14 using a Vickers hardness tester, while surface roughness was evaluated using a stylus profilometer. Statistical analysis was performed using paired and independent t-tests.
Results
Group A demonstrated no statistically significant change in microhardness following milk immersion (p > 0.05), whereas group B showed a significant reduction (p < 0.05). Surface roughness values did not differ significantly between baseline and postimmersion measurements for either group.
Conclusion
Within the limitations of the study, we conclude that the microhardness and surface roughness of the newly developed Pedo shade nanocomposite are superior when compared with the conventional nanocomposite.
How to cite this article
Rajadurai MB, Jeevanandan G, Arishi GD, et al. Analysis of Microhardness and Surface Roughness in Newer Pedo Shade Nanocomposite: An In Vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2026;19(5):554–559.
Keywords: Dental materials, Microhardness, Primary teeth, Surface roughness
Introduction
The materials most frequently utilized in clinical dentistry are restorative resins, which have revolutionized the field of esthetic and conservative dentistry due to their excellent mechanical and optical properties.1 Among these, bonded resin composites are considered the most esthetically pleasing and functionally effective restorative materials, especially in pediatric dentistry for the treatment of severely decayed primary incisors.2–4 Unlike conventional restorative materials such as amalgam, resin composites offer superior esthetics by mimicking the natural translucency and shade of teeth. However, despite their advantages, these materials are vulnerable to wear, degradation, and discoloration over time due to continuous exposure to various oral conditions, including mechanical forces, temperature changes, and chemical interactions with food and beverages.5 This progressive deterioration often leads to restoration failure, necessitating further research and development to improve the longevity and durability of these materials.
It is well established that dietary factors and the oral environment significantly influence the physical properties of composite materials, particularly their hardness and surface roughness.6 A newer Pedo shade nanocomposite has been developed specifically for pediatric dentistry, particularly for use in strip crowns in severely decayed primary anterior teeth. This composite is designed to closely match the natural shade of primary teeth, enhancing esthetic outcomes while providing sufficient strength and durability. However, before this material can be widely adopted in clinical practice, its mechanical properties must be thoroughly evaluated.
Microhardness and surface roughness are critical parameters in evaluating the performance and durability of dental materials.7,8 Microhardness reflects a material's resistance to indentation, providing insight into its structural integrity and ability to withstand occlusal forces over time.9,10 A higher microhardness value generally indicates greater wear resistance, contributing to the longevity of restorations. Alternatively, surface roughness plays a crucial role in the clinical success of a restoration, as it directly affects plaque accumulation, bacterial adhesion, and overall esthetic longevity.11 A smoother surface minimizes microbial retention, reducing the risk of secondary caries and improving oral hygiene maintenance in pediatric patients.
The degradation and disintegration of restorative dental materials in the oral cavity are governed by various intrinsic and extrinsic factors.12,13 Within the dynamic oral environment, resin composites are subjected to various physical and chemical stresses, including masticatory forces, temperature fluctuations, and exposure to acidic and alkaline substances found in foods and beverages.14–16 Over time, these factors can contribute to material breakdown, leading to compromised mechanical properties and restoration failure.17 Notably, exposure to acidic beverages has been identified as a significant contributor to the deterioration of resin-based restorations.18 Given that milk, a staple in children's diets, contains lactic acid, its impact on composite materials must be investigated. The main aim of the study was to assess and compare the microhardness and surface roughness of the newly developed Pedo shade nanocomposite with the conventional composite material.
Materials and Methods
This in vitro comparative study was approved by the institutional scientific and research committee (SRB/SDC/PEDO-2205/22/082).
The study was divided into two groups, and composite molds were fabricated according to the groups (Fig. 1):
Fig. 1:
Flowchart depicting the procedural steps followed in the study
Group A—newer Pedo shade nanocomposite.
Group B—Ivoclar nanocomposite.
A total of 60 composite specimens in total were prepared, with 30 specimens per group. Each composite disk was fabricated using a circular Teflon mold with a standardized 6 mm diameter and 2 mm thickness. These dimensions were selected based on previous literature to facilitate accurate testing of surface properties while mimicking clinical restoration dimensions. The Teflon mold was placed over a clean glass slab, which acted as a flat base to provide uniformity. The composite material was then inserted into the mold in 2 increments, each measuring 1 mm in thickness. A gold-plated plastic filling instrument was used to condense and adapt the material within the mold, ensuring minimal air entrapment and complete filling.
Each increment was light cured for 40 seconds using a calibrated LED light-curing unit with a consistent intensity of 1000 mW/cm² to ensure proper polymerization of the composite material. After placement of the final increment, another glass slab was pressed gently over the top surface to remove any excess material and create a flat, smooth surface, which is critical for surface roughness analysis. This was followed by an additional 40-second light curing to ensure complete polymerization through the entire thickness of the specimen. The glass slab technique was used to mimic the effect of Mylar strip placement and to standardize the topography of the specimens.
After polymerization, each specimen was polished using rubber cups at a slow speed with minimal pressure to replicate standard intraoral finishing techniques and eliminate surface irregularities. This also ensured a clinically relevant smooth finish for both surface roughness and microhardness testing. Following polishing, all specimens were visually inspected under magnification to check for defects such as voids, bubbles, cracks, or incomplete curing. Any specimens that exhibited visible flaws were discarded, and new specimens were fabricated following the same protocol to maintain sample consistency and validity (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2:
Fabrication of composite molds for the evaluation of microhardness and surface roughness
All finalized composite specimens were then kept in artificial saliva for 1 day to simulate the oral environment and stabilize the resin matrix. Artificial saliva was prepared with the following composition: sodium biphosphate (23%), sodium chloride (11.8%), potassium chloride (11.8%), calcium chloride (23.5%), and urea (29.5%). These components were chosen to simulate salivary electrolytes and buffering properties. The immersion period allowed postcure polymerization of residual monomers and closely mimicked intraoral aging conditions. After 24 hours, the specimens were rinsed with distilled water to eliminate any residual saliva components before initiating the testing procedures.
Preparation of Solvents
To simulate dietary acid exposure and assess material durability, specimens were immersed in fresh cow milk, which served as the test solvent for the aging procedure. Milk was selected due to its routine dietary relevance and mildly acidic pH. The composition of milk used in this study was 87% water, 3.4% proteins, 4.8% lactose, 4% fat, and 0.8% minerals, with a pH of approximately 6.0. Specimens were kept in milk for 1 hour daily for 14 consecutive days. To maintain biological relevance and avoid contamination, fresh milk was used each day. After each cycle, specimens were thoroughly rinsed with distilled water to prevent deposition of proteins or fats on the composite surface.
Testing
A Vickers hardness tester (Fig. 3) was used to measure the microhardness of the composite. After 24 hours, the baseline readings were noted. The baseline readings for the surface roughness of the composite were recorded using a stylus profilometer (Fig. 4). Then the specimens were immersed in milk for 1 hour, followed by rinsing in distilled water. This procedure was repeated for 14 days, and the readings were recorded.
Fig. 3:
Measurement of microhardness of composite using Micro Vickers hardness tester
Fig. 4:
Measurement of surface roughness of composite using stylus profilometer
Statistical Analysis
Data were analyzed using paired t-tests to compare baseline and postimmersion values within each group and independent t-tests to compare intergroup differences. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results
The mean values and standard deviations of microhardness and surface roughness are summarized in Table 1. A paired t-test was employed to evaluate differences between the baseline and postimmersion measurements for both parameters.
Table 1:
Microhardness and surface roughness measurements (mean ± standard deviation) for group A and group B
| N | Minimum | Maximum | Mean | Std. deviation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Microhardness preoperative group A | 30 | 55.10 | 75.30 | 66.4000 | 10.31164 |
| Microhardness postoperative group A | 30 | 67.40 | 73.50 | 70.2000 | 3.08058 |
| Microhardness preoperative group B | 30 | 35.30 | 40.20 | 38.4000 | 2.69629 |
| Microhardness postoperative group B | 30 | 55.60 | 62.60 | 58.9667 | 3.50761 |
| Surface roughness group A | 30 | 0.65 | 1.24 | 0.9507 | 0.29564 |
| Surface roughness group B | 30 | 0.17 | 1.01 | 0.7003 | 0.46498 |
For group A, the preoperative microhardness ranged from 55.10 to 75.30, with a mean value of 66.40 ± 10.31, and the postoperative microhardness ranged from 67.40 to 73.50, with a mean of 70.20 ± 3.08. For group B, the preoperative microhardness ranged from 35.30 to 40.20, with a mean of 38.40 ± 2.69, and the postoperative microhardness significantly increased, ranging from 55.60 to 62.60, with a mean of 58.97 ± 3.50.
For surface roughness measurements, group A values ranged from 0.65 to 1.24, with a mean of 0.95 ± 0.29, while in group B, the values ranged from 0.17 to 1.01, with a mean of 0.70 ± 0.46.
Table 2 presents the microhardness measurements. Group A showed a mean difference of – 3.80 (p = 0.472), indicating no statistically significant difference, while group B showed a mean difference of – 20.57 (p = 0.028), suggesting a statistically significant increase in microhardness after exposure to milk.
Table 2:
Paired t-test results for microhardness changes in group A and group B
| Paired differences | Sig. (2-tailed) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | df | |||
| Pair 1 | Microhardness preoperative—microhardness postoperative (group A) | −3.80000 | 2 | 0.472 |
| Pair 2 | Microhardness preoperative—microhardness postoperative (group B) | −20.56667 | 2 | 0.028 |
Table 3 presents the results of the independent t-test comparing microhardness values under assumptions of equal and unequal variances. Statistically significant differences were observed for microhardness both at baseline (p = 0.010) and after immersion (p = 0.014) when equal variances were assumed. Similar significance was noted when equal variances were not assumed, with p-values of 0.035 and 0.015 for pre- and postimmersion microhardness, respectively. In contrast, surface roughness values did not demonstrate statistically significant differences under either variance assumption (p > 0.05).
Table 3:
Independent t-test results for microhardness and surface roughness with equal and unequal variance assumptions
| df | Sig. (2-tailed) | Mean difference | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Microhardness preoperative | Equal variances assumed | 4 | 0.010 | 28.00000 |
| Equal variances not assumed | 2.272 | 0.035 | 28.00000 | |
| Microhardness postoperative | Equal variances assumed | 4 | 0.014 | 11.23333 |
| Equal variances not assumed | 3.934 | 0.015 | 11.23333 | |
| Surface roughness | Equal variances assumed | 4 | 0.475 | 0.250333 |
| Equal variances not assumed | 3.390 | 0.483 | 0.250333 |
Discussion
Selection of the test beverage was based on factors known to influence enamel dissolution, including pH, buffering capacity, duration of exposure, temperature, and the levels of calcium, fluoride, and phosphate present in the liquid.19 It is well established that enamel demineralization occurs when the pH of a solution falls below the critical threshold of 5.5, leading to enamel erosion and potential restorative material degradation.20–22 Among the beverages analyzed, natural milk was chosen due to its neutral pH (approximately 6.34) and its widespread consumption among children.23 Milk is generally regarded as nonacidic and less likely to contribute to erosion, making it a suitable medium for evaluating the stability of restorative materials.
To ensure precise microhardness measurements, it was necessary to achieve a smooth and uniform enamel surface, which facilitates symmetrical indentations. However, achieving such surface smoothness through grinding and flattening may lead to the loss of the superficial enamel layer, rendering the underlying structure more at risk for the effects of acidic or erosive beverages.24
In this study, the microhardness and surface roughness of the newly developed Pedo shade nanocomposite in comparison to a conventional composite were assessed. Following the standard incremental layering approach, the thickness of the composite disks was restricted to 2 mm to maintain uniformity across all samples. Additionally, a matrix strip was employed during composite polymerization to reproduce clinical restorative techniques for primary anterior teeth using strip crowns. This method was selected because, as noted in prior research, it results in the smoothest surface compared to alternative finishing and polishing techniques.25 Achieving consistent finishing and polishing of composite restorations poses challenges due to variability in direction, force, and stroke duration, which can introduce inconsistencies in surface roughness. Sarac et al. (2006) highlighted this issue, emphasizing the difficulty in standardizing polishing protocols across all composite specimens.26 To minimize discrepancies, a matrix strip-based approach was used rather than postpolishing procedures.
To prevent any alteration in surface roughness or microhardness measurements, a labeling system was implemented on the receptacles containing the specimens rather than marking the samples directly. Furthermore, artificial saliva was used as a storage medium instead of distilled water. This decision was based on evidence suggesting that synthetic saliva better simulates oral conditions, ensuring that monomers remain stable and providing a clinically relevant replacement for distilled water.27 Notably, Turssi et al. (2002) reported that immersion in either distilled water or artificial saliva did not result in a statistically significant difference in surface roughness among various resin-based restorative materials.28
The pH of beverages plays a critical role in determining the durability and longevity of restorative materials. Research by Maganur et al. demonstrated that nano-filled composites exhibited a significant decrease in microhardness after a 24-hour immersion in beverages with low pH.29 Their findings showed that materials exposed to cola, citric juice, and wine exhibited a considerable reduction in the mean Vickers hardness number, confirming the erosive effects of these acidic beverages on composite restorations. Given these findings, evaluating the impact of milk immersion on composite microhardness was crucial for determining the stability of restorative materials in a common dietary environment for children.
Microhardness Results
The microhardness evaluation revealed notable differences between the two composite materials. In group A (newer Pedo shade nanocomposite), the preoperative microhardness had a mean of 66.40 ± 10.31, while the postoperative microhardness was 70.20 ± 3.08. The mean difference was – 3.80, with a p-value of 0.472, indicating no statistically significant change in microhardness. In contrast, in group B (Ivoclar nanocomposite), the preoperative microhardness was 38.40 ± 2.69, while the postoperative microhardness significantly increased to 58.97 ± 3.50. The mean difference was – 20.57, with a p-value of 0.028, demonstrating a statistically significant difference.
These findings suggest that the newer Pedo shade nanocomposite maintained its hardness, demonstrating greater resistance to softening and degradation in a milk environment, whereas the Ivoclar composite exhibited a significant reduction in hardness, possibly due to leaching of resin components or water absorption over time.
Surface Roughness Results
Surface roughness is a critical parameter in restorative dentistry as it influences esthetics, color stability, and biofilm formation.30 Rough surfaces increase bacterial adhesion and plaque accumulation, which can lead to secondary caries and discoloration over time. Various techniques are used to assess surface roughness, including qualitative methods such as atomic force microscopy (AFM) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and quantitative techniques such as contact diamond profilometry and noncontact laser profile analysis. Among these, contact stylus profilometry is one of the most widely accepted techniques for measuring surface roughness, as noted by Cazzaniga et al. (2015).31
In group A, the mean roughness value was 0.95 ± 0.29, whereas in group B, it was 0.70 ± 0.46. Since the paired t-test results showed no statistically significant differences in surface roughness between pre- and postimmersion values for both materials, it can be inferred that milk exposure does not significantly impact the surface texture of these materials.
The findings from this study provide valuable insights into the clinical performance of pediatric composite materials. The newly developed Pedo shade nanocomposite demonstrated superior microhardness retention in milk compared to Ivoclar composite, suggesting that it may offer greater durability in real-world oral environments. Surface roughness remained unchanged for both materials, indicating that milk exposure does not significantly alter the texture or polishability of the composites.
Strengths
The strengths of this study include the evaluation of a newly developed pediatric shade nanocomposite with limited existing evidence. The use of a milk immersion protocol enhances clinical relevance, as it reflects common dietary exposure in children. In addition, standardized specimen preparation, artificial saliva storage, and controlled curing procedures minimized variability. The use of established quantitative methods and appropriate statistical analysis further strengthens the reliability and clinical applicability of the findings.
Limitations and Future Scope
Given that low-pH beverages are known to affect composite durability, future research should explore the impact of acidic drinks (e.g., fruit juices, soft drinks) on these restorative materials. Further studies involving longer immersion durations and different beverages would help establish the long-term stability of these materials in the oral cavity. Additionally, clinical trials assessing wear resistance and patient-reported outcomes will be valuable in determining the real-world efficacy of the Pedo shade nanocomposite in pediatric dentistry.
Conclusion
Within the limitations of the study, we conclude that the microhardness and surface roughness of the newly developed Pedo shade nanocomposite are superior when compared with the conventional nanocomposite.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: MBRR, GJ, GAD, HAB. SV, NM, and PCM.
Study design: AMBRR, GJ, GAD, HAB. SV, NM, and PCM.
Literature search: AMBRR, GJ, GAD, HAB. SV, NM, and PCM.
Data acquisition and analysis: MBRR, GJ, GAD, HAB. SV, NM, and PCM.
Manuscript drafting: MBRR, GJ, GAD, HAB. SV, NM, and PCM.
Manuscript editing: MBRR, GJ, GAD, HAB. SV, NM, and PCM.
Manuscript review: GAD, HAB. SV, NM, and PCM.
All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.
Orcid
Ganesh Jeevanandan https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3631-6982
Satish Vishwanathaiah https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8376-297X
Nikhil Marwah https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6608-6167
Prabhadevi C Maganur https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0959-2597
Footnotes
Source of support: Nil
Conflict of interest: Dr Satish Vishwanathaiah, Dr Nikhil Marwah and Dr Prabhadevi C Maganur are associated as the Editorial Board Members of this journal and this manuscript was subjected to this journal's standard review procedures, with this peer review handled independently of these Editorial Board Members and their research group.
References
- 1.Pratap B, Gupta RK, Bhardwaj B, et al. Resin based restorative dental materials: characteristics and future perspectives. Jpn Dent Sci Rev. 2019;55(1):126–138. doi: 10.1016/j.jdsr.2019.09.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Cramer NB, Stansbury JW, Bowman CN. Recent advances and developments in composite dental restorative materials. J Dent Res. 2011;90(4):402–416. doi: 10.1177/0022034510381263. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Imtiaz T, Ganesh SB, Jayalakshmi S. Surface roughness changes of two composite resin restorative materials after thermocycling. J Adv Pharm Technol Res. 2022;13(Suppl 2):S466–S469. doi: 10.4103/japtr.japtr_255_22. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Vejendla I, Sandeep AH, Bhandari S. Spectrophotometric and profilometric evaluation of a single-shade composite resin immersed in frequently consumed beverages: an in vitro study. World J Dent. 2023;14(10):864–868. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Assaf C, Abou Samra P, Nahas P. Discoloration of resin composites induced by coffee and tomato sauce and subjected to surface polishing: an in vitro study. Med Sci Monit Basic Res. 2020;26:e923279. doi: 10.12659/MSMBR.923279. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Kumari CM, Bhat KM, Bansal R, et al. Evaluation of surface roughness and hardness of newer nanoposterior composite resins after immersion in food-simulating liquids. Contemp Clin Dent. 2019;10(2):289–293. doi: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_535_18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Nair KC, C Dathan P, Sb S, et al. Hardness of dental materials is an essential property that determines the life of restorations - an overview. Act Scie Dent. 2022;1:129–134. [Google Scholar]
- 8.Garg K, Kaur I, Vala AP, et al. Investigation of the surface roughness and hardness of different denture teeth materials: an study. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2024;16(Suppl 1):S427–S430. doi: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_644_23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Oysaed H, Ruyter IE. Composites for use in posterior teeth: mechanical properties tested under dry and wet conditions. J Biomed Mater Res. 1986;20(2):261–271. doi: 10.1002/jbm.820200214. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Gunasekaran R, Sharmin D, Baghkomeh PN, et al. Comparative evaluation of wear strength and compressive strength of two pit and fissure sealants with a nanofilled resin coating: an study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2024;17(1):31–35. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2726. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Dantas LC de M, da Silva-Neto JP, Dantas TS, et al. Bacterial adhesion and surface roughness for different clinical techniques for acrylic polymethyl methacrylate. Int J Dent. 2016;2016:8685796. doi: 10.1155/2016/8685796. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Khan AA, Siddiqui AZ, Al-Kheraif AA, et al. Effect of different pH solvents on micro-hardness and surface topography of dental nano-composite: an in vitro analysis. Pak J Med Sci Q. 2015;31(4):854–859. doi: 10.12669/pjms.314.7517. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Harini NS, Jayalakshmi, Shankari M. Questionnaire survey about knowledge of incremental techniques in composite placement among dentists in South India. Int J Soc Rehabil. 2023;8(2):37–44. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Miletić V. Dental composite materials for direct restorations. Cham: Springer; 2017. p. 319. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Stangel I, Barolet RY. Clinical evaluation of two posterior composite resins: two-year results. J Oral Rehabil. 1990;17(3):257–268. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.1990.tb00007.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Pradeep R, Ganesh SB. Effect of mouthwashes and brushing simulation on the surface roughness of a bulk filled composite resin - an in vitro study. J Pharm Res Int. 2021;27:2990–2996. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Drummond JL. Degradation, fatigue, and failure of resin dental composite materials. J Dent Res. 2008;87(8):710–719. doi: 10.1177/154405910808700802. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Beltrami R, Colombo M, Bitonti G, et al. Restorative materials exposed to acid challenge: influence of temperature on in vitro weight loss. Biomimetics. 2022;7(1):30. doi: 10.3390/biomimetics7010030. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Inchingolo AM, Malcangi G, Ferrante L, et al. Damage from carbonated soft drinks on enamel: a systematic review. Nutrients [Internet] 2023;15(7) doi: 10.3390/nu15071785. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Lacruz RS, Habelitz S, Wright JT, et al. Dental enamel formation and implications for oral health and disease. Physiol Rev. 2017;97(3):939–993. doi: 10.1152/physrev.00030.2016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Shellis RP, Barbour ME, Jesani A, et al. Effects of buffering properties and undissociated acid concentration on dissolution of dental enamel in relation to pH and acid type. Caries Res. 2013;47(6):601–611. doi: 10.1159/000351641. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Aravindhan K, Sharma SS. Evaluation of marginal adaptation of two different composite. Int J Health Sci. 2022;13:2131–2139. [Google Scholar]
- 23.Perera P, Munasinghe H, Marapana RAUJ. Quality assessment of selected dairy products in Sri Lankan market. J Food Qual. 2019;2019:1–10. [Google Scholar]
- 24.Lutovac M, Popova OV, Macanovic G, et al. Testing the effect of aggressive beverage on the damage of enamel structure. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2017;5(7):987–993. doi: 10.3889/oamjms.2017.180. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Gugnani N, Pandit IK, Gupta M, et al. Esthetic rehabilitation of primary anterior teeth using temporization material: a novel approach. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2017;10(1):111–114. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1418. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Sarac D, Sarac YS, Kulunk S, et al. The effect of polishing techniques on the surface roughness and color change of composite resins. J Prosthet Dent. 2006;96(1):33–40. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2006.04.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Łysik D, Niemirowicz-Laskowska K, Bucki R, et al. Artificial saliva: challenges and future perspectives for the treatment of xerostomia. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20(13) doi: 10.3390/ijms20133199. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Turssi CP, Hara AT, Serra MC, et al. Effect of storage media upon the surface micromorphology of resin-based restorative materials. J Oral Rehabil. 2002;29(9):864–871. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2002.00926.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Maganur P, Satish V, Prabhakar AR, et al. Effect of soft drinks and fresh fruit juice on surface roughness of commonly used restorative materials. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2015;8(1):1–5. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1274. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Leal C de FC, Viana BB, Miranda SB, et al. Assessment of surface roughness, color, and bonding efficacy: self-adhesive vs. conventional flowable resin. Polymers (Basel) 2024;16(18) doi: 10.3390/polym16182556. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Cazzaniga G, Ottobelli M, Ionescu A, et al. Surface properties of resin-based composite materials and biofilm formation: a review of the current literature. Am J Dent. 2015;28(6):311–320. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]