In-vitro study shows whitening toothpastes altered surface roughness in restorative materials, suggesting material-specific effects.
Objectives: This in-vitro study aimed to evaluate the effects of four commercially ava-ilable whitening and conventional toothpastes on the surface roughness of contemporary res-torative materials, including an alkasite, a nano-hybrid composite, a nano-hybrid flowable composite, an ormocer-based flowable material, and a zirconia-reinforced glass ionomer. Materials and Methods: A total of 225 specimens were prepared and subjected to standardized simulated tooth-brushing equivalent to one month of clinical use. Surface ro-ughness (Ra) values were measured before and after brushing using a contact profilometer. Non-parametric statistical tests (Wilcoxon, Kruskal–Wallis, Dunn with Bonferroni correction) were used to analyze changes within and between material–toothpaste combinations. Results: Significant differences in surface roughness were found among most mate-rial–toothpaste combinations (p < 0.05). Ormocer, flowable composites (NF0, NF2), and Zir-conomer (Z2, Z3) showed the greatest susceptibility to abrasion, while NF3–NF4, A3–A4, and several nanohybrid subgroups (N1–N3–N4) demonstrated similar resistance with no signifi-cant changes. Conclusion: These findings indicate that the abrasivity of toothpastes influences resto-rative materials in a highly material-dependent manner. Clinical toothpaste selection should therefore consider the type of restorative material present.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cansu Yıkıcı Çöl (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: