J Conserv Dent. 2014 May-Jun; 17(3): 261265.

doi: 10.4103/0972-0707.131791
PMCID: PMC4056399
The effect of different beverages on surface hardness of nanohybrid resin composite and
giomer
Saijai
Tanthanuch, Boonlert
Kukiattrakoon,1 Chantima
Siriporananon, Nawanda
Ornprasert, Wathu Mettasitthikorn,Salinla Likhitpreeda, and Sulawan Waewsanga
Author information Article notes Copyright and License information
Abstract
INTRODUCTION
Nanohybrid resin composite, the newest resin composite restorative material, is becoming
popular because it combines physical, mechanical, and esthetic properties. It incorporates a
high volume fraction of filler particles with a wide particle size distribution (5-100 nm).[1]
The compressive and diametral strength, and the fracture resistance of the nanohybrid resin
composite is equivalent to or higher than those of other composites (hybrid, microhybrid, and
microfilled-resin composite).[1]
Giomer is a relatively new innovative filler technology of resin composite as an esthetic
direct restorative material for anterior and posterior teeth restoration. Similar to a traditional
methacrylate-based composite, the giomer chemical composition encompasses inorganic
filler particles and organic-resin matrix.[2,3] In place of applying purely glass or quartz as the
typical fillers, the giomer encompasses inorganic fillers (ranges between 0.01 and 5 m) that
are derived from the complete or partial reaction of ion-leachable fluoroboroaluminosilicate
glasses with polyalkenoic acids in water before being interfaced with the organic matrix.[2,3]
This created a stable glass-ionomer phase on a glass core in which they induced an acid-base
reaction between acid reactive fluoride containing glass and polycarboxylic acid in the
presence of water and developed as a prereacted glass ionomer (PRG) filler.[4] The preaction can involve only the surface of the glass particles (called surface PRG (S-PRG)) or
almost the entire particle (termed fully PRG (F-PRG)).[4]
Nowadays, people are interested in healthy drinks and fruit juice. A recent study suggested
that drinking apple cider can help maintain good health as well as help one detox.[5]
However, consumption of acidic food, fruit juices, soft drinks, coffee, tea, or wine, can result
in surface damage and decrease hardness, esthetic quality, and other properties of resin
composite and giomer.[6,7,8,9,10,11] There are a number of studies reporting the different
surface hardness effects of beverages on resin composite and giomer,[7,10,12,13] but only a

few of the studies reported effects of apple cider, orange juice, Coca-Cola, coffee, and beer on
surface hardness of nanohybrid resin composite and giomer. In addition, the previous
studies[7,12] presented the continuous immersion of resin composite in the selected
beverages. However, during consumption, drink contacts only shortly with the tooth surfaces
before it is washed away by saliva. This study was then designed to simulate the washing
effect of saliva of an individual drinking by cyclic specimen immersion. Therefore, the
objectives of this study were to compare the effects of different beverages (apple cider,
orange juice, Coca-Cola, coffee, and beer) on surface hardness and surface characteristic
changes of nanohybrid resin composite and giomer and to investigate the pH and titratable
acidity of different beverages.
Go to:
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Specimen preparation
Ninety-three disc-shaped specimens (10.0 mm in diameter and 2.0 mm in thickness) were
made from each nanohybrid resin composite and giomer using a polytetrafluoroethylene
cylindrical mold. The details of these materials are given in Table 1. A mylar strip and a glass
slide were then placed over the filled mold after which light pressure (20 N) was applied. The
glass slide and the mylar strip had mirror flat surfaces. This method was able to provide a
smooth surface on each specimen. The specimens were polymerized for 40 s with a lightactivated polymerization unit (Elipar 2500, 3M ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA) to ensure a
complete polymerization.[14] The light intensity was verified with a measuring device (Cure
Rite, L.D. Caulk, Milford, DE, USA). No mechanical preparation or abrasions of specimens
were performed.
Table 1
Materials used in this study

The pH and titratable acidity measurements

Five beverages were used in this study: Apple cider, orange juice, Coca-Cola, coffee, and
beer [Table 2]. The pH of each beverage was determined using a pH meter (Orion 900A,
Orion Research, Boston, MA, USA). Ten pH readings of the freshly prepared drinks were
obtained in order to give a mean pH measurement for each beverage.
Table 2

Beverages used in the present study

To determine titratable acidity (buffering capacity),[15] 20 mL of each beverage was added

by 0.5 mL increments of 1 mol/L sodium hydroxide (NaOH). The amount of NaOH required
to reach pH levels of 5.5, 7.0, and 10.0 was recorded. The titrations for each beverage were
also repeated 10 times to obtain a mean value.
Beverage immersion and microhardness testing
Ninety-three discs of each nanohybrid resin composite and giomer were divided into five
groups of 18 specimens, the rest of three samples (before immersion) were subjected to
scanning electron microscopy (SEM) (JSM model 5800LV, JEOL, Tokyo, Japan)
observations. Each group was subjected to surface microhardness measurement to obtain a
baseline value. The hardness value (kg/mm2) of each specimen was determined using a
microhardness tester (Micromet II, Buehler, Lake Bluff, IL, USA) with a diamond Vickers
indenter. A load of 0.3 N was applied to the surface for 10 s. Five indentations, equally
spaced over a circle, were made on the surface of each specimen.
After that, at room temperature (about 25C), the specimens were alternately immersed in 25
mL of a beverage for 5 s and in 25 mL of artificial saliva for 5 s for 10 cycles.[ 7] The same
protocol was used with different beverages used in this study for 28 days consecutively. In
order to maintain the original pH level of the beverages, they were refreshed daily throughout
the experiment. The specimens immersion protocol simulated an individual eating acidic
food, sour fruits, and drinks.[7] After the immersion sequence was completed, the specimens
were rinsed with deionized water, blotted dry, and subjected to post-immersion surface
microhardness testing. The surface hardness test was carried out at the following intervals,
before immersion and then subsequently at 7, 14, 21, and 28 days. Gradual changes in surface
microhardness were recorded at each time interval.
Surface micromorphology analysis
Using SEM, the effect of each beverage on the surface micromorphology of the materials
before and after immersion were determined. Three specimens of each restorative material
from each of the five beverages at day 28 were examined.
Statistical analysis

Surface microhardness values were tested for significant differences (at = 0.05) using twoway analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measurement, Tukey's honestly significant
difference (HSD), and a t-test for multiple comparisons.
Go to:
RESULTS
The mean pH and standard deviations (SDs) and titratable acidity of beverages with 1 mol/L
NaOH is shown in Table 3. The microhardness values of the materials used before and after
immersion are reported in Table 4.
Table 3
The mean pH and standard deviation (SD) and titratable acidity (volume of NaOH (mL) to
bring the pH to 5.5, 7.0, and 10.0) in beverages tested

Table 4
Mean microhardness and standard deviations (SDs) of materials tested immersed in different
beverages at different times

SEM photomicrographs of the nanohybrid resin composite and giomer, before and after the
28 day of immersion period in the different beverages, are presented in Figures

Figures11 and and2,2, respectively. The Coca-Cola group produced the roughest specimen
surface.
Figure 1

Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) photomicrographs of nanohybrid resin composite

(300): (a) Before immersion (b) after immersion in apple cider (c) orange juice (d) CocaCola, (d) coffee, and (e) beer
Figure 2

SEM photomicrographs of giomer (300): (a) Before immersion (b) after immersion in apple
cider (c) orange juice (d) Coca-Cola (d) coffee, and (e) beer
DISCUSSION
Microhardness values of all groups decreased from the initial week of immersion until the
end of the 28 days period and the greatest change in hardness shown occurred within the first
7 days. The specimens were not exposed to any mechanical forces so any observed change in
hardness would be from a chemical reaction or dissolution. The decreasing in microhardness
related to the pH and the titratable acidity of beverages as seen from SEM photomicrographs.
According to the SEM results of this present study, both materials tested became rougher
after soaking in the beverages. Beautifil II giomer became rougher than the Premise resin
composite, because average filler particle size of Beautifil II is 0.8 mm and Premise is 0.4
mm. After soaking in the beverages, dislodgement of filler particles resulting in Beautifil II
giomer became rougher than the Premise resin composite.
Coca-Cola is a popular soft drink with the lowest pH among the beverages in the present
study. After immersing the specimens in the beverages, Coca-Cola produced the roughest
surface. It has been reported that a low pH in acidic food and drink induces erosive wear in
materials.[16] Although Coca-Cola is the lowest tritratable acidity, but Coca-Cola is a
carbonate beverage containing carbonic acid and phosphoric acid which promotes dissolution
and easily eroded the materials.[17] The erosive potential of an acid drink is not exclusively
dependent on its pH, is also strongly influenced by its tritratable acid content in beverages.
[18,19] The pH values present only a measure of the free hydrogen ion concentration. It does
not present the hydrogen ion remaining in the undissociated form. Thus, the potential
degradation of acidic agents should be considered for both the pH value and titratable acidity.
Apple cider has the highest tritratable acidity in this study of beverages, while orange juice as
a fruit drink has higher tritratable acidity than the other three groups of beverages, thus
indicating erosive potential. Some beverages appear to be less erosive than others within the
same pH. It may also be possibly related to the type of acid used in beverage's formulations.
[20] Apple cider and orange juice are composed of citric acid while Coca-Cola is composed
of phosphoric acid and carbonic acid. Phosphoric acid softens materials more than citric acid
and carbonic acid. However, citric acid has been shown to be aggressive for dental hard
tissues and resin-based restorative materials.[13] The influence of the acidity increasingly
dissolves the matrix, along with any unstable glass particles in a low pH value drink. High
acidity might have a greater softening effect on the resin matrix, thus promoting the
dislodgement and leaching out of filler particles and reducing the load resistance of
restorative materials.[13] In comparison to a giomer, resin composite was found to be less
affected by low pH beverages or acid solution.[13] Therefore, Premise resin composite
exhibited less change in surface hardness values than Beautifil II giomer.
The results of this present study showed that microhardness decreased from the 1 st week until
the end of the 28 days period of immersion in coffee. Although the pH of coffee is nearly 7,
coffee is composed of water, and the effect of water uptake can degrade polymer materials.

[21] When polymer materials absorb water, coupling agents cause hydrolysis and loss of
chemical bond between filler particles and the resin matrix. Filler particles dislodge from the
outer surface of the material[22] causing surface roughness and decreasing hardness. The
effect upon the resin matrix and the degradation of the resin-filler interface and inorganic
fillers may also play a role in the reduction of surface hardness.[23] This may explain why
Premise resin composite, which contains silica/barium glass, shows hardness decrements
when exposed to beverages. Factors which influenced water absorption of polymer-based
materials included the types of resin. A hydrophobic resin like hydroxyethylmethacrylate
absorbs more water than one like bis-GMA. Filler loading may affect the water absorption of
materials, with higher filler loading expecting to show a lower uptake.[22] The last factor
which influences water absorption of polymer-based tooth-color filling materials is the
presence of voids during the mixing or producing of these materials. However, water
absorption values of resin composites are significantly less than giomer restorations.[23]
The result of this present study also showed that microhardness decreased from the first week
until the end of the 28 days period of immersion in beer, accompanied with the data of
McKinney and Wu.[24] Wine and 9% volume alcohol beverages cause significant increases
in the degree of corrosion because alcohol in beverages soften polymer matrices and dislodge
filler particles, resulting in a rapid decrease in microhardness.[25]
The limitations of this study included incomplete replication of the complex oral environment
and disregard for the effects of temperature change. Whilst further studies may examine
the in vivo effects of beverages and this study could not completely replicate the complex oral
environment, this study at least confirms the erosive potential of certain acidic juices, soft
drink, coffee, and alcoholic beverages; which are a potentially damaging factor that the public
should be aware of.
Go to:
CONCLUSION
Within the limitation of this study, the following conclusions were drawn: All the beverages
used significantly reduced the surface hardness of the both materials, particularly at the end
of the 28 days immersion period. Immersion in Coca-Cola caused more surface hardness
reduction over time than other beverages. In addition, giomer showed significantly greater
reduction in surface hardness than nanohybrid resin composite. The effect of these beverages
on the surface of both restorative materials also depended upon the exposure time and
chemical composition of the restorative materials and beverages.
Footnotes
Source of Support: Faculty of Dentistry Research Fund, Prince of Songkla University
Conflict of Interest: None declared
REFERENCES

1. Beun S, Glorieux T, Devaux J, Vrevena J, Leloup G. Characterization of nanofilled

compared to universal and microfilled composites. Dent Mater. 2007;23:519. [PubMed]
2. Gordan VV, Mondragon E, Watson RE, Garvan C, Mjor IA. A clinical evaluation of a selfetching primer and a giomer restorative material: Results at eight years. J Am Dent
Assoc. 2007;138:6217. [PubMed]
3. Sunico MC, Shinkai K, Katoh Y. Two-year clinical performance of occlusal and cervical
giomer restorations. Oper Dent. 2005;30:2829. [PubMed]
4. Lien W, Vandewalle KS. Physical properties of a new silorane-based restorative
system. Dent Mater.2010;26:33744. [PubMed]
5. Baskaran SA, Amalaradjou MA, Hoagland T, Venkitanarayanan K. Inactivation of
Escherichia coli 0157: H7 in apple juice and apple cider by trans-cinnamaldehyde. Int J Food
Microbiol. 2010;141:1269.[PubMed]
6. Hengtrakool C, Kukiattrakoon B, Kedjarune-Leggat U. Effect of naturally acidic agents on
microhardness and surface micromorphology of restorative materials. Eur J Dent. 2011;5:89
100. [PMC free article][PubMed]
7. Wongkhantee S, Patanapiradej V, Maneenut C, Tantbirojn D. Effect of acidic food and
drinks on surface hardness of enamel, dentine, and tooth-coloured filling materials. J
Dent. 2006;34:21420. [PubMed]
8. Tanthanuch S, Patanapiradej V. Effect of Thai wine on surface roughness and corrosion of
various tooth-coloured filling materials. J Dent Assoc Thai. 2009;52:1008.
9. Sarrett DC, Coletti DP, Peluso AR. The effects of alcoholic beverages on composite
wear. Dent Mater.2000;16:627. [PubMed]
10. Han L, Okamoto A, Fukushima M, Okiji T. Evaluation of flowable resin composite
surfaces eroded by acidic and alcoholic drinks. Dent Mater J. 2008;27:45565. [PubMed]
11. Okte Z, Villalta P, Garcia-Gody F, Lu H, Powers JM. Surface hardness of resin
composites after staining and bleaching. Oper Dent. 2006;31:6238. [PubMed]
12. Wu W, McKinney JE. Influence of chemicals on wear of dental composites. J Dent
Res. 1982;61:11803. [PubMed]
13. Erdemir U, Yildiz E, Eren MM, Ozel S. Surface hardness of different restorative materials
after long-term immersion in sports and energy drinks. Dent Mater J. 2012;31:729
36. [PubMed]
14. Poggio C, Lombardini M, Gaviati S, Chiesa M. Evaluation of Vickers hardness and depth
of cure of six composite resins photo-activated with different polymerization modes. J
Conserv Dent. 2012;15:23741.[PMC free article] [PubMed]
15. Cairns AM, Watson M, Creanor SL, Foye RH. The pH and titratable acidity of a range of
diluting drinks and their potential effect on dental erosion. J Dent. 2002;30:3137. [PubMed]

16. Coombes JS. Sports drinks and dental erosion. Am J Dent. 2005;18:1014. [PubMed]
17. Bagheri R, Tyas MJ, Burrow MF. Subsurface
composites. Dent Mater.2007;23:94451. [PubMed]

degradation

of

resin-based

18. Grando LJ, Tames DR, Cardoso AC, Gabilan NH. In vitro study of enamel erosion caused
by soft drinks and lemon juice in deciduous teeth analysed by stereomicroscopy and scanning
electron microscopy. Caries Res. 1996;30:3738. [PubMed]
19. Maupom G, Dez-de-Bonilla J, Torres-Villaseor G, Andrade-Delgado LC, Castao
VM. In vitroquantitative assessment of enamel microhardness after exposure to eroding
immersion in a cola drink. Caries Res. 1998;32:14853. [PubMed]
20. Lussi A, Jaeggi T, Zero D. The role of diet in the aetiology of dental erosion. Caries
Res. 2004;38:3444. [PubMed]
21. Gpferich
A.
Mechanisms
of
erosion. Biomaterials. 1996;17:10314.[PubMed]

polymer

degradation

and

22. Santos C, Clarke RL, Braden M, Guitian F, Davy KW. Water absorption characteristics of
dental composites incorporating hydroxyapatite filler. Biomaterials. 2002;23:1897
904. [PubMed]
23. EL-Sharkawy FM, Zaghloul NM, Ell-kappaney AM. Effect of water absorption on color
stability of different resin based restorative materials in vitro study. Int J Compos
Mater. 2012;2:710.
24. McKinney JE, Wu W. Chemical softening and wear of dental composites. J Dent
Res. 1985;64:132631.[PubMed]
25. Ferracane JL, Marker VA. Solvent degradation and reduced fracture toughness in aged
composites. J Dent Res. 1992;71:139. [PubMed]