Objective: To evaluate the in vitro changes on the enamel surface after a micro-abrasion treatment promoted by different products. Material and Methods: Fifty (50) fragments of bovine enamel (15 mm × 5 mm) were randomly assigned to five groups (n=10) according to the product utilized: G1 (control)= silicone polisher (TDV), G2= 37% phosphoric acid (3M/ESPE) + pumice stone (SS White), G3= Micropol (DMC Equipment), G4= Opalustre (Ultradent) and G5= Whiteness RM (FGM Dental Products). Roughness and wear were the responsible variables used to analyze these surfaces in four stages: baseline, 60 s and 120 s after the micro-abrasion and after polishing, using a Hommel Tester T1000 device. After the tests, a normal distribution of data was verified, with repeated ANOVA analyses (p≤0.05) which were used to compare each product in different stages. One-way ANOVA and Tukey tests were applied for individual comparisons between the products in each stage (p≤0.05). Results: Means and standard deviations of roughness and wear (µm) after all the promoted stages were: G1=7.26(1.81)/13.16(2.67), G2=2.02(0.62)/37.44(3.33), G3=1.81(0.91)/34.93(6.92), G4=1.92(0.29)/38.42(0.65) and G5=1.98(0.53)/33.45(2.66). At 60 seconds, all products tended to produce less surface roughness with a variable gradual decrease over time. After polishing, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups, except for G1. Independent of the product utilized, the enamel wear occurred after the micro-abrasion. Conclusions: In this in vitro study, enamel micro-abrasion presented itself as a conservative approach, regardless of the type of the paste compound utilized. These products promoted minor roughness alterations and minimal wear. The use of phosphoric acid and pumice stone showed similar results to commercial products for the micro-abrasion with regard to the surface roughness and wear.

OBJECTIVES: Nanofilled composite resins are claimed to provide superior mechanical properties compared with microhybrid resins. Thus, the aim of this study was to compare nanofilled with microhybrid composite resins. The null hypothesis was that the size and the distribution of fillers do not influence the mechanical properties of surface roughness and wear after simulated toothbrushing test. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ten rectangular specimens (15 mm x 5 mm x 4 mm) of Filtek Z250 (FZ2), Admira (A), TPH3 (T),Esthet-X (EX), Estelite Sigma (ES), Concept Advanced (C), Grandio (G) and Filtek Z350 (F) were prepared according to manufacturer's instructions. Half of each top surface was protected with nail polish as control surface (not brushed) while the other half was assessed with five random readings using a roughness tester (Ra). Following, the specimens were abraded by simulated toothbrushing with soft toothbrushes and slurry comprised of 2:1 water and dentifrice (w/w). 100,000 strokes were performed and the brushed surfaces were reanalyzed. Nail polish layers were removed from the specimens so that the roughness (Ra) and the wear could be assessed with three random readings (µm). Data were analyzed by ANOVA and Tukey's multiple-comparison test (α=0.05). RESULTS: Overall outcomes indicated that composite resins showed a significant increase in roughness after simulated toothbrushing, except for Grandio, which presented a smoother surface. Generally, wear ofnanofilled resins was significantly lower compared with microhybrid resins. CONCLUSIONS: As restorative materials suffer alterations under mechanical challenges, such as toothbrushing, the use of nanofilled materials seem to be more resistant than microhybrid composite resins, being less prone to be rougher and worn.