Surface Roughness Modulation in S-PRG-Containing Resin Composites: Impact of Prebiotics and Probiotics | ||||
| Ain Shams Dental Journal | ||||
| Volume 37, Issue 1, March 2025, Page 377-388 PDF (1.32 MB) | ||||
| Document Type: Original articles | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/asdj.2024.325051.1578 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
Hanan Kamal Abouelsoud1; Dalia Mostafa Abouelmagd 2; heba Bahgat Abdelmaksoud  3
| ||||
| 1Conservative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia | ||||
| 2Conservative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt. Departement of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. | ||||
| 3Conservative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Aim: This study's objective was to investigate the impact of gut-friendly supplements on the surface roughness of bulk-fill resin composites. Materials and methods: A hundred composite discs (10 mm × 2 mm) were prepared from a bioactive surface pre-reacted glass (S-PRG) filled composite Beautifil Bulk Restorative (BBR) and nanohybrid Tetric N-Ceram bulk (TNB) restorative resin-composite. Ten discs were examined per group after 24 hours without treatment (baseline). Then, each group was split up into four subgroups (n=10) based on the immersion media: distilled water (control), probiotics, prebiotics, and pro/prebiotic media. Specimens were submerged for 10 minutes/day for 1 month. A 3D non-contact optical Profilometer was utilized to measure surface roughness (Ra). Three subsequent measurements in each specimen were taken to calculate the mean surface roughness values. Data were calculated and statistically analyzed using Two-way ANOVA followed by Tuckey’s post hoc test (P ≤ 0.05). Results: The results showed that the supplements-immersed surfaces of all tested materials were roughest. There was a statistically significant difference between TNB and BBR immersed in prebiotic and baseline at p=0.003 and p=0.022, respectively. The BBR specimens immersed in prebiotic solution had the highest surface roughness value (10.57 ± 0.90 µm). Conclusion: The S-PRG and nanohybrid composite resins' surface roughness may be adversely affected by dietary supplements that are gut-friendly. BBR composite resin was the one that suffered the most damage in surface roughness analysis after storage in the prebiotics solution. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| S-PRG filler; Bulk-fill resins; Nanohybrid resin; Probiotics; Surface roughness | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 140 PDF Download: 72 |
||||
