822 final Evalua&on on Microhardness of Self-Adhesive Pediatric Filling Vol 13 No 1 (2025) DOI 10.5195/d3000.2025.822 h#p://den*stry3000.pi#.edu Evaluation of Microhardness of Self-Adhesive Pediatric Filling Sohaib Qais Alwan, Rusal Saad Ahmed, Ali Saad Ahmed, Saif Saad Kamil Tikrit University, Tikrit, Iraq Abstract Objec&ve: The purpose of this study was to evaluate how beverages affected the self-adhesive hybrid pediatric cement's microhardness. Materials and Methods: Specimens measuring 5 mm in diameter and 2 mm in thickness were fabricated from Surefil one self-adhesive hybrid GIC and subjected to exposure by acidic beverages. The study involved three groups (arHficial saliva as control, Cola, Sparkling water with lemon). Samples for Vickers hardness were immersed for 15 minutes daily for 28 days. Then, samples were tested using a Vickers microhardness tester. StaHsHcal analysis involved the use of one-way Anova and post hoc Tucky test at the level of significance of 0.05. Results: When Surefil One samples were submerged in simulated saliva, their Vickers microhardness significantly decreased. Samples submerged in Cola showed the largest decline, indicaHng a negaHve impact on material integrity. Conclusions: Beverages affected the self-adhesive hybrid pediatric cement's microhardness. Keywords: Fluoride release; Glass Ionomer Cement; Microhardness; Surefil One. Cita9on: Alwan SQ, et al. (2025) Evalua9on of Microhardness of Self-Adhesive Pediatric Filling. Den9stry 3000. 1:a001 doi:10.5195/d3000.2025.822 Received: January 7, 2025 Accepted: January 14, 2025 Published: February 17, 2025 Copyright: ©2025 Alwan SQ, et al. This is an open access ar9cle licensed under a Crea9ve Commons AYribu9on Work 4.0 United States License. Email: ali.s.ahmed@tu.edu.iq Introduction Because of its exceptional qualities, which include fluoride release, biocompatibility, and adhesion to dentin and enamel, glass-ionomer cements have been used in both restorative and preventative dentistry [1,2]. Glass ionomer cements are a crucial and essential component of several restorative, pedodontic, and preventative dental procedures. This is because these materials may closely mimic the structure of teeth and allow for remineralization at the tooth- material contact. GICs stand out as practical and clinically essential among the wide range of dental materials that are accessible, and they are a mainstay of modern dentistry treatment [3]. Recent developments in dental material science have sparked a great deal of interest in learning more about how different environmental conditions affect GIC characteristics. One area of interest is how various drinks and beverages affect some of these restorations' mechanical, chemical, and physical characteristics [4]. For both academics and clinicians, knowing how popular beverages affect glass ionomer materials is crucial because it provides valuable information on how long dental restorations will last in real-world situations [5]. Depending on the beverage's composition and pH levels, different drinks may interact differently with glass-ionomer cements. Acidic drinks, including carbonated drinks and citrus juices, pose a risk to GICs because they cause acidic erosion and filling material deterioration [6,7]. The integrity and qualities of the cement matrix may be compromised by the breakdown of glass particles brought on by the acidic environment. Furthermore, extended exposure to acidic drinks might hasten the GIC's fluoride release, decreasing its effectiveness and encouraging remineralization [8]. In a previous study, conventional and Resin- Modified Glass Ionomer Cements Evalua&on on Microhardness of Self-Adhesive Pediatric Filling Vol 13 No 1 (2025) DOI 10.5195/d3000.2025.822 h#p://den*stry3000.pi#.edu revealed qualitative surface changes after immersion in different drinks (Coca-Cola, Lemonade, and Fuzetea), characterized by the presence of unevenly distributed micro-cavities on the surface [9]. Furthermore, research suggests that such drinks can have erosive effects on GICs, with different erosion patterns observed. The depth of erosion was found to be greater at the margin than at the body of the restoration [10]. Fluoride release from dental restorative materials is an important aspect of their effectiveness in avoiding tooth decay and supporting oral health [11]. Several research have been undertaken over time to explore the fluoride release qualities of different dental repair materials [12,13]. However, these studies have frequently produced significantly variable results, which can be due to variances in methodology, specimen size, storage conditions, and measuring procedures [14]. In a previous study, it was found that glass carbomer exhibited the highest fluoride release into deionized water compared to conventional GIC (Chemfil Rock) and resin- modified GIC (Fuji II LC). However, the fluoride uptake by glass carbomer did not lead to increased fluoride release, unlike the conventional and resin-modified GICs, where fluoride uptake enhanced subsequent fluoride release. This suggests that while glass carbomer may be highly effective in initial fluoride release, its recharging mechanism differs from other GICs [15,16]. Material and Methods The materials and its composition used in the study are listed in (Table 1). Table 1. Materials used. Material Composition Surefil One Self-Adhesive composite hybrid Powder: silanated aluminum-phosphorus-strontium-sodium- fluoro-silicate glass, dispersed silicon dioxide, ytterbium fluoride, and pigments Liquid: acrylic acid, polycarboxylic acid, bifunctional acrylate, self-cure initiator, camphorquinone, and stabilizer Cola Carbonated Water High Fructose Corn Syrup (or Sucrose) Caramel Color (E150d) Phosphoric Acid Natural Flavors Caffeine Citric Acid Sodium Citrate Evalua&on on Microhardness of Self-Adhesive Pediatric Filling Vol 13 No 1 (2025) DOI 10.5195/d3000.2025.822 h#p://den*stry3000.pi#.edu Sparkling Water with lemon Sparkling Water Fresh Lemon Juice Lemon Slices Study Design The purpose of this prospective in vitro study was to investigate the effects of acidic drinks on Surefil One's Vickers microhardness. Three groups—Group A, Group B, and Group C—were formed according to the immersion solutions that were used: sparkling water, Cola, and artificial saliva, respectively. There were ten samples in each group, for a total of thirty samples per test condition. Samples Preparation Samples were fabricated using molds crafted from clear acrylic plates (Perspex Cell Cast Acrylic, Clairvaux-les-Lacs, France). For the microhardness test, disks were standardized to dimensions of 5 mm in height and 2 mm in thickness [11,17,18]. The molds were put on the surface of a thick glass plates, then celluloid transparent strips (Stripmat, POLYDENTIA, CH-6805 Mezzovico, Switzerland) were interposed between them to ensure a even surface and reduce the risk of air bubbles. After filling the molds with Surefil one material, excess material was removed, and another transparent strip was applied followed by a second glass plate. Samples were polymerized for 20 seconds using an LED curing light source (Optilight LD MAX, Gnatus, Ribeirão Preto, SP. Brasil). The tip of the light cure 8mm in diameter and the intensity of the light of 1200 mW as measured with a radiometer (Denshine, China). After curing, the samples were cautiously taken out of the molds and finished by only trimming any excess with sheets of 1200 grit silicon carbide. Immersion Procedure Three groupings of samples were created: Group A: As a control, disks were submerged in fake saliva for the length of the trial. Group B: For 28 days, samples were submerged in the acidic beverage (Cola) for 15 minutes every day. Group C: Similarly to Group B, samples were submerged in the freshly made acidic beverage (Sparkling water with lemon) for 15 minutes every day for 28 days, and the pH was measured with a pH meter (Milwaukee, USA). When not submerged in liquids, samples in groups B and C were maintained in artificial saliva. Vickers Microhardness Ten disc-shaped samples per group, each measuring 5 mm in height and 2 mm in diameter, were prepared for Vickers microhardness testing. After removal from the molds, the samples were incubated for 24 hours at 37°C. Surface microhardness was evaluated by a digital tester (laryee hvs- 5Manufacturing Limited, Beijing, China) as shown in (Figure 1). Three indentations were made within 15 seconds of dwell time with a load of 100 g and a magnification of 20×. The mean surface microhardness value for each sample was recorded in Vickers hardness numbers (VHN). Figure 1. Vickers microhardness test. Evalua&on on Microhardness of Self-Adhesive Pediatric Filling Vol 13 No 1 (2025) DOI 10.5195/d3000.2025.822 h#p://den*stry3000.pi#.edu Statistical Analysis The statistical analysis for this study involved descriptive statistics such as mean, standard deviation, minimum, and maximum values. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the mean values of compressive strength and Vickers microhardness among the different groups. Independent t test was used for fluoride release and uptake tests. Finally, post-hoc analysis such as Donnette’s test and Tuckey’s HSD, was conducted to determine which specific groups differed significantly from each other Results Vickers Microhardness The highest recorded value was observed in group A, followed by group C, and then group B. Tuckey post hoc test revealed highly significant differences between all the groups (Table 2). Table 2. Descriptive statistics for Vickers microhardness test. Group Min Max Mean ±SD F P-value Groups P-value Group A 76.50 79.50 78.1000 0.87000 102.345 0.000 A B 0.000 Group B 71.50 73.50 72.8000 0.85000 A C 0.000 Group C 73.50 76.50 75.0000 0.89000 B C 0.000 Levene’s statistics = 3.045, P-value = 0.085 [NS] Discussion The observed decrease Vickers microhardness of SureFil one following immersion in acidic beverages such as cola and sparkling water with lemon underscores the intricate interplay of chemical and physical processes inherent in the composition and behavior of the material. SureFil one, a self-adhesive composite hybrid, comprises a unique blend of components designed to impart superior mechanical properties and ease of application in dental restorations. The material's main component, high molecular weight polyacrylic acid functionalized with polymerizable groups (referred to as MOPOS), forms the backbone of its structural matrix. This polyacrylic acid bears similarities to Vitrebond copolymer, present in Vitremer and Ketac Nano. Moreover, SureFil one contains monomers with two photopolymerizable ends (BADEP), introduced to the polyacrylic acid chains as cross-linkers, enhancing the material's mechanical strength [19,20]. Cola and sparkling water with lemon are both acidic. Cola contains phosphoric acid and carbonic acid, sparkling water with lemon contains organic acids such as malic and citric acids. Upon exposure to such acidic beverages, the chemical constituents of SureFil one are subjected to degradation and alteration. The acidic environment catalyzes hydrolytic degradation of the resin matrix, facilitated by the presence Evalua&on on Microhardness of Self-Adhesive Pediatric Filling Vol 13 No 1 (2025) DOI 10.5195/d3000.2025.822 h#p://den*stry3000.pi#.edu of phosphoric acid in cola and organic acids in the sparkling water juice. Acid-catalyzed hydrolysis and ion exchange processes lead to the leaching of fillers from the resin matrix, resulting in a depletion of reinforcing components and a consequent decline in compressive strength [21,22,23]. In addition, the acids in such beverages can erode the surface layer of Surefil one. The acrylic and polycarboxylic acids of Surefil one may react with these external acids which leads to breakdown of polymer network. Such erosion can expose the underlying filler particles and decrease the surface resistance to wear and indentation [24]. Furthermore, the acidic constituents of the beverages can interact with the chemical constituents of SureFil one, such as the modified polyacid MOPOS and cross-linker BADEP, precipitating complex chemical transformations that compromise the intermolecular bonding within the material [25.] Acid-base reactions between the acidic components of the material and those of the beverages result in the formation of new chemical species, altering the material's microstructure and contributing to a reduction in Vickers microhardness [26,27]. In addition, the presence of water in such beverages enables the entrance of water inside the structure of SureFil one increasing water absorption and causes hydrolysis of the ester bonds in the bifunctional acrylate, which can induce swelling and plasticization of the material, further weakening the mechanical properties and aggravating the decrease in compressive strength and microhardness [28-30]. Conclusion Almost all glass ionomer cements are affected by beverages, and this study showed that Surefil one is also affected by the exposure to Cola and sparkling water with lemon, that’s why clinicians should pay attention to such factors to maintain the long-term performance of the restoration and ensure the satisfaction of patients. Conflicts of interest The authors declare no competing interest. References 1. Park EY, Kang S. Current aspects and prospects of glass ionomer cements for clinical denmstry. Yeungnam Univ J Med. 2020 Jul;37(3):169. doi: 10.5152/yujm.2020.01. [DOI not available] 2. Hill R. Glass ionomer polyalkenoate cements and related materials: past, present and future. Br Dent J. 2022 May 13;232(9):653- 7. doi: 10.1038/s41415- 022-3796-5. 3. Pratap B, Gupta RK, Bhardwaj B, Nag M. Resin based restoramve dental materials: Characterismcs and future perspecmves. Jpn Dent Sci Rev. 2019 Nov 1;55(1):126-38. doi: 10.1016/j.jdsr.2019.08.001 . 4. Ipikhar S, Jahanzeb N, Saleem M, ur Rehman S, Mamnlinna JP, Khan AS. The trends of dental biomaterials research and future direcmons: A mapping review. Saudi Dent J. 2021 Jul 1;33(5):229-38. doi: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2021.04.0 05. 5. Sikka N, Brizuela M. Glass ionomer cement. StatPearls. 2024 Mar 4. [DOI not available] 6. Jaiswal S, Pusarapu K, Alla RK, Guduri V, AV R, Mc SS. Solubility of glass ionomer cement in various acidic beverages at different mme intervals: an in vitro study. Evalua&on on Microhardness of Self-Adhesive Pediatric Filling Vol 13 No 1 (2025) DOI 10.5195/d3000.2025.822 h#p://den*stry3000.pi#.edu Int J Dent Mater. 2022 Dec 31;4(3):78-81. doi: 10.1097/IDM.0000000000 000211. 7. Ganesh S, Ganesh SB, Jayalakshmi S. Effect of carbonated beverages on flexural strength property of restoramve glass ionomer cement. J Adv Pharm Technol Res. 2022 Nov 1;13(Suppl 1). doi: 10.4103/japtr.japtr_238_2 2. 8. Nica I, Stoleriu S, Iovan A, Tărăboanță I, Pancu G, Tofan N, Brânzan R, Andrian S. Convenmonal and resin- modified glass ionomer cement surface characterismcs aper acidic challenges. Biomedicines. 2022 Jul 21;10(7):1755. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines1007 1755. 9. Hübel S, Mejàre I. Convenmonal versus resin- modified glass-ionomer cement for Class II restoramons in primary molars. A 3-year clinical study. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2003 Jan;13(1):2-8. doi: 10.1046/j.0960- 7439.2003.00420.x. 10. Wan Bakar WZ, Abdullah A, Hussien A. Erosion effect of acidic drinks on two types of glass ionomer cement. Malays Dent J. 2011 Jul 1;33(2). [DOI not available] 11. AHMED, Ali Saad; KAMIL, Saif Saad; ARAB, Luma Nasrat. Assessment of peel bond strength between two facial prosthemc materials aper surface treatment methods: In vitro study. Journal of Internamonal Oral Health, 2024, 16.1: 63-68. 12. Wiegand A, Buchalla W, A{n T. Review on fluoride- releasing restoramve materials—fluoride release and uptake characterismcs, anmbacterial acmvity and influence on caries formamon. Dent Mater. 2007 Mar 1;23(3):343-62. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2006.02.0 09. 13. AHMED, Ali Saad, et al. Influence of Some Plant Extracts on Anmfungal Propermes, Hardness, and Peel Bond Strength of Heat- Cured Denture Sop Liner. Diyala Journal of Medicine, 2024, 26.2: 14-28. 14. Vandever C. Introducmon to research stamsmcal analysis: An overview of the basics. HCA Healthcare J Med. 2020;1(2):71. [DOI not available] 15. Hasan AM, Sidhu SK, Nicholson JW. Fluoride release and uptake in enhanced bioacmvity glass ionomer cement (“glass carbomer™”) compared with convenmonal and resin-modified glass ionomer cements. J Appl Oral Sci. 2019 Feb 21;27. doi: 10.1590/1678-7757- 2018-0230. 16. Hasan AM, Sidhu SK, Nicholson JW. Fluoride release and uptake in enhanced bioacmvity glass ionomer cement (“glass carbomer™”) compared with convenmonal and resin-modified glass ionomer cements. J Appl Oral Sci. 2019 Feb 21;27. doi: 10.1590/1678-7757- 2018-0230. 17. AHMED, Ali Saad; AHMED, Rusal Saad; ARAB, Luma Nasrat. The anmfungal potenmal of cinnamon oil incorporated into a heat- polymerized sop liner. Journal of Dental Materials & Techniques, 2024, 13.3. 18. Altamimi A, Majeed MA. Development and Evalua&on on Microhardness of Self-Adhesive Pediatric Filling Vol 13 No 1 (2025) DOI 10.5195/d3000.2025.822 h#p://den*stry3000.pi#.edu assessment of new bioacmve glass fiber post. Part II: Ion’s release. Indian J Forensic Med Toxicol. 2021 Jul 1;15(3). doi: 10.37506/ijfmt.v15i3.1453 0. 19. ISO 9917-1:2007 Denmstry—Water-based cements—Part 1: Powder/liquid acid-base cements; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017. [DOI not applicable] 20. Chesterman J, Jowe� A, Gallacher A, Nixon PJ. Bulk- fill resin-based composite restoramve materials: a review. Br Dent J. 2017 Mar 10;222(5):337-44. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2017.263. 21. KAMIL, Saif Saad; KHAUDHAIR, Aseel Taha; HAMID, Hind Thyab. Associamon of Dental Caries with Different ABO Blood Groups. Den$stry 3000, 2024, 12.1. 22. Valinom AC, Neves BG, Silva EM, Maia LC. Surface degradamon of composite resins by acidic medicines and pH-cycling. J Appl Oral Sci. 2008;16:257-65. doi: 10.1590/S1678- 77572008000300003. 23. Münchow EA, Ferreira AC, Machado RM, Ramos TS, Rodrigues-Junior SA, Zanchi CH. Effect of acidic solumons on the surface degradamon of a micro- hybrid composite resin. Braz Dent J. 2014;25:321-6. doi: 10.1590/0103- 6440201300035003. 24. Zhao Q, Gao Y, Jin X, Han F, Chen K, Chen C. Influence of acidic environment on hydrolymc stability of MDP- Ca salts with nanolayered and amorphous structures. Int J Nanomedicine. 2022 Apr 13;17:1695-709. doi: 10.2147/IJN.S334292. 25. Facio RC, Vieira-Junior W, Basmng RT, Turssi CP, do Amaral FL, França FM. Influence of fluoride- releasing materials in the inhibimon of enamel and denmn demineralizamon around restoramons. Braz Dent Sci. 2022 Dec 19;25(4). doi: 10.5935/1678- 4391.20220052. 26. Kukia�rakoon B, Hengtrakool C, Kedjarune- Leggat U. Effect of acidic agents on surface roughness of dental ceramics. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2011;8(1):6. doi: 10.4103/1735-3327.78697. 27. Bitencourt SB, Catanoze IA, da Silva EV, Dos Santos PH, Dos Santos DM, Turcio KH, Guio{ AM. Effect of acidic beverages on surface roughness and color stability of armficial teeth and acrylic resin. J Adv Prosthodont. 2020 Apr;12(2):55. doi: 10.4047/jap.2020.12.2.55. 28. Zimmer S, Kirchner G, Bizhang M, Benedix M. Influence of various acidic beverages on tooth erosion. Evaluamon by a new method. PLoS One. 2015 Jun 2;10(6). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0129 462. 29. Almudaihesh F, Holford K, Pullin R, Eaton M. The influence of water absorpmon on unidirecmonal and 2D woven CFRP composites and their mechanical performance. Compos Part B Eng. 2020 Feb 1;182:107626. doi: 10.1016/j.compositesb.201 9.107626. 30. Abuzenada BM, Souror YR, Waly AS, Khlifa Y. Mutans streptococci growth on Evalua&on on Microhardness of Self-Adhesive Pediatric Filling Vol 13 No 1 (2025) DOI 10.5195/d3000.2025.822 h#p://den*stry3000.pi#.edu glass ionomer incorporated with chlorhexidine: in-vivo study. Braz Dent Sci. 2020;23(2):1-7. doi: 10.5935/1678- 4391.20200013.