2- Linz F.docx J Bagh College Dentistry Vol. 28(3), September 2016 Effect of Acidic and Restorative Dentistry 8 Effect of Acidic and Energy Drinks on Surface Roughness of Three Types of Bulk Fill Composite Materials Linz A. Shalan, B.D.S., M.Sc. (1) ABSTRACT Background: This study aimed to study the effect of some acidic drinks (Vinegars and fresh Orange juice) and energy drinks (Red bull) on surface roughness of three types of bulkfill composite materials: Filtek posterior bulkfill (3M), Sonicfill (Kerr) and Filtek p60 (3M). Materials and Methods: Total number of 120 samples are prepared by using a mold of (12mm diameter and 3mm height), which were divided into three groups forty samples for each group: Group A: Filtek bulkfill posterior composite (3M), Group B: Sonicfill composite (Kerr), Group C: Filtek P60 (3 M) which then divided into four sub- groups (n=10) (1) samples were kept in distilled water as a control group (2) samples were immersed in Redbull (3) samples were immersed in fresh Orange juice (4) samples were immersed in Vinegars. Immersion of samples were made manually for 5 seconds for 10 cycles at room temperature daily for one month then surface roughness was measured by the use of profilometer ,The data were recorded and statistically analyzed, by the ANOVA and the Tukey test. Results: Data were statistically analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey test which revealed that there were a high significant (p<0.001) increase in surface roughness of the three composite materials after immersion in Vinegar and Redbull drinks after one month with highest value for Filtek Bulkfill posterior composite (3M), than Sonicfill composite (Kerr) and Filtek p 60 (3 M) and there was non-significant difference (p> 0.05) in surface roughness value for the three composite materials after immersion in Fresh orange juice. Conclusions: The effect of energy and acidic drinks depend upon exposure time, composition of the composite material Keywords: Energy drinks, Bulkfill composite, Red bull, roughness. (J Bagh Coll Dentistry 2016; 28(3):8-14). INTRODUCTION Composite resins are widely used in restorative and pediatric dentistry. Most of the available composites contain a polymer matrix of dimethacrylate monomers, such as Bis-GMA, UDMA, TEGDMA and Bis-EMA, inorganic filler particles coated with a methyl methacrylate functional silane coupling agent to bond the filler to the organic matrix, and a photoinitiator system to allow photoactivation by light units (1). To be clinically successful, restorative materials are required to have long-term continuousness, a quality which is strongly influenced not only by the intrinsic characteristics of the materials, but also by the environment to which they are exposed to (2). But the oral cavity is a complex, aqueous environment where the restorative material is in contact with saliva (3,4). In addition, other factors such as low pH due to acidic foods and drinks may influence the material’s mechanical and physical characteristics. In a clinical environment, a material’s decrease of hardness may contribute to its deterioration (5). However, "under in vivo conditions, composite resin materials may be exposed either discontinuously or continually to chemical agents found in saliva, food, and beverages (6). Consequently, in the short- or long- term, these conditions may have a deleterious effect on the polymeric network, modifying its structure physically and chemically (3,4). (1) Lecturer, Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, University of Baghdad. Physical characteristics of restorative materials are an important concern when determining suitable restorative materials because they strongly influence the clinical longevity of restorations (3). Bulk-fill composites are popular restorative materials that have been on the market for several years. Unlike traditional composites, which typically are placed in maximum increments of 2 mm, bulk-fill composites are designed to be placed in 4 mm, or sometimes greater increments. Restoring a tooth in one step certainly appears to save time, there are some concerns. For example, manufacturers claim that bulk-fill materials have greater depth of cure and lower polymerization- induced shrinkage stress (3). Bulk fill composite had the advantages of time saving and easy handling, nowadays bulk fill composites become widely used amongst practitioners. However, only few studies were published on comparing the light-curing efficiency and mechanical properties of the commercially available bulk fill composite. Therefore, the aim of the this study is to evaluate the surface roughness of three types of bulkfill composite: Filtek bulkfill posterior composite (3M), Sonicfill composite (Kerr) and Filtek P 60 (3M) after immersion in acidic solutions used daily by people such as energy drinks Redbull (due to it is consumption has gained high popularity among the adolescent population especially 18-35 years olds in recent years) (6), Vinegars, Orange juice for 1 month. J Bagh College Dentistry Vol. 28(3), September 2016 Effect of Acidic and Restorative Dentistry 9 MATERIALA AND METHODS Three bulkfill materials were used Filtek bulkfill (3M), Sonicfill composite (Kerr) and Filtek P60 (3M) their composition and shade presented in table (1), the acidic solution used in this study their composition, pH presented in table (2). Table 1: Composition of the tested materials and drinks used in this study Products The resin matrix The filler Manufacture Filler loading wt/vol Filler size Shade Filtek Bulk Fill, Posterior restorative AUDMA, UDMA, and 1, 12-dodecane- DMA. Silica filler, a zirconia fill and ytterbium trifluoride filler 3M ESPE, St. Paul, USA 76.5% wt 4-20 nm A3 Sonic fill Bis-EMA TEGDMA Silicon dioxide Glass, oxide, chemicals Zirconium compound Ytterbium triflouride Kerr 83% wt 0.4-30 nm A3 Filtek P60 Bis- GMA,UDMA and Bis-EMA Zirconia/silica 3M ESPE, St. Paul, USA 83 % wt 0.19-3.5 µm A3 Table 2: Acidic drinks used in this study Grouping: Group A: 40 samples were made from Filtek Bulkfill posterior composite (3 M) Group A1: 10 samples were immersed in Distilled water (control group) Group A2: 10 samples were immersed in Red bull energy drinks Group A3: 10 samples were immersed in Orange juice. Group A4: 10 samples were immersed in Vinegar. Group B: 40 samples were made from Sonicfill comoposite ( Kerr) Group B1: 10 samples were immersed in Distilled water (control group) Group B2: 10 samples were immersed in Red bull energy drinks Group B3: 10 samples were immersed in Orange juice. Group B4: 10 samples were immersed in Vinegar. Group C: 40 sample were made from Filtek P60 (3M) Group C1: 10 samples were immersed in Distilled water. Group C2: 10 samples were immersed in Red bull energy drinks Group C3: 10 samples were immersed in Orange juice. Group C4: 10 samples were immersed in Vinegar. Samples preparation: By utilizing cylindrical Teflon molds (3mm in height and 12mm in diameter) (8).The molds were placed on a transparent celluloid strip that fixed on a glass cement slab. The materials were inserted and pressed into the mold until it were intentionally overfilled. Then the materials were covered with another celluloid strip and a glass microscopic slide. 100 gm pressure was applied to expel excess material from the mold. Each specimen were light-cured by LED (Wood pecker, china) with 600 mw/cm2 for 20 second for all tested materials as recommended by their manufacturerיs through the application of the tip of light cure directly on the top glass slide (distance about 1.2mm, which is the thickness of the glass slide and celluloid strip), all samples were stored in vials that contained distilled water (pH 6.58) in an incubator at 37 ΟC for 24 hours before they were tested. The acidity of solutions were measured with a pH meter (model 3320). The pH meter was calibrated using test solutions of known pH (Fisher Scientific International, Loughborough, UK) (8) Immersion of specimens in solutions One group was stored in vials containing 5 ml of distilled water and kept in an incubator at 37°C as a control group and the distilled water Material Composition pH Manufactures Red bull Sucrose, glucose, acidity regulatory sodium, citric acid, caffine, vitamins, natural flavours, colors 3.11 GMbh, Austeria Fresh orange juice Carbohydrate, proteins, vitamins, minerals, citric acid, water 3.5 Hand made Apple vinegars Acetic acid 5-8%, water and flavoring 2.5 Zer, Turkey J Bagh College Dentistry Vol. 28(3), September 2016 Effect of Acidic and Restorative Dentistry 10 was renewed daily up to 1-month. The other specimens from each experimental group were individually immersed in vials containing 5mL of energy drinks Red bull, Vinegars, Orange juice for 5 second daily at room temperature (23±1°C). After the immersion period in the test solutions, the samples were washed with distilled water and the specimens were maintained in distilled water at 37°C during the rest of the day. Newly opened test solutions were used for each day, The pHs of the solutions were measured daily with a pH meter (Fisher Scientific International, Loughborough, UK) before immersing the specimens, for the entire experimental period, Thereafter, in order to evaluate the change in surface hardness over time, surface roughness test were carried after 1- monthafter the start of storage for the control (9) by the use of profilometer (Federal Mahr pocket surf, USA) figure (1) each sample was measured three times in various locations within the area of experimental zone, the roughness value Ra was the average of these measurements in (µm). RESULTS Statistics for tested composite materials Descriptive statistics: Means, standard deviation, minimum, maximum of surface roughness values for the three tested composite materials are listed in table (3). The results showed that there was increasing in means of roughness values of all types of composite after immersion in acidic drinks, also the data revealed that the Filtek p60 had the lowest roughness values and Filtek Bulkfill posterior composite had the highest value Inferential statistics: Statistical analysis of data by using ANOVA test for all groups of tested composite revealed that there is a high significant differences (p< 0.001) in surface roughness values Ra among the groups for each composite material after immersion in acidic drinks and distilled water which show a high significant differences in surface roughness Ra values among the tested composite with as shown in table (3). Figure 1: Profilometer Table 3: Descriptive and ANOVA test among the three tested composite Groups Subgroups Descriptive statistics Comparison N Mean S.D. Minimum Maximum F-test p-value Sig. Bulk fill A1 10 0.15 0.01 0.14 0.16 329.974 .000 HS A2 10 0.27 0.02 0.25 0.29 A3 10 0.17 0.03 0.14 0.24 A4 10 0.39 0.01 0.37 0.40 Sonic fill B1 10 0.09 0.02 0.07 0.12 179.791 .000 HS B2 10 0.18 0.02 0.16 0.21 B3 10 0.10 0.02 0.08 0.13 B4 10 0.28 0.02 0.25 0.31 P60 C1 10 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.08 28.147 .000 HS C2 10 0.07 0.01 0.06 0.08 C3 10 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.07 C4 10 0.10 0.02 0.08 0.12 The data revealed from ANOVA test analyzed by Tueky test for all tested material which showed that there was a high significant increase in surface roughness value Ra of the three types of composite (p> 0.001) after immersion in both Red bull and Vinegar and there was non-significant differences (p< 0.05) in surface roughness value for the three materials after immersion in orange juice as shown in table (4) and fig (2). J BagJ Bagh College Dentistry Restorative Dentistry Figure Another statistical analysis were made between the subgroups for the tested material to Data Tukey test which showed that there was a high significant increase in surface roughness h College Dentistry Restorative Dentistry Table Figure 2: surface roughness of the three tested composite Another statistical analysis were made between the subgroups for the tested material to Table 5 Data revealed from AN Tukey test which showed that there was a high significant increase in surface roughness Control Red Bull Orange juice Vinger Media h College Dentistry Restorative Dentistry Table 4: Tueky : surface roughness of the three tested composite Another statistical analysis were made between the subgroups for the tested material to 5: Descriptive and ANOVA test from ANOVA test analyzed by Tukey test which showed that there was a high significant increase in surface roughness Groups Bulk fill Sonic fill P60 N A1 10 B1 10 C1 10 A2 10 B2 10 C2 10 A3 10 B3 10 C3 10 A4 10 B4 10 C4 10 Subgroup s h College Dentistry Vol. 2 Tueky test among the groups for the tested materials : surface roughness of the three tested composite Another statistical analysis were made between the subgroups for the tested material to escriptive and ANOVA test OVA test analyzed by Tukey test which showed that there was a high significant increase in surface roughness value A3 B3 C3 B2 C1 C2 Subgroups A1 A2 B1 N Mean 10 0.15 10 0.09 10 0.05 10 0.27 10 0.18 10 0.07 10 0.17 10 0.10 10 0.04 10 0.39 10 0.28 10 0.10 Descriptive statistics Vol. 28(3), September 11 test among the groups for the tested materials : surface roughness of the three Another statistical analysis were made between the subgroups for the tested material to analyze the effect of each acidic drinks on the three teste consist of both descriptive and ANOVA test, Vinegars had the highest mean value for increasing surface roughness tested groups orange juice had the lowest increase in surface roughne materials. significant differences (p roughness increase for all tested composite materials. escriptive and ANOVA test for acidic drinks on each material OVA test analyzed by Tukey test which showed that there was a high value (p< composite materials for each type of ac shown in table (6 M. Differe A2 -0.12 A3 -0.02 A4 -0.24 A3 0.10 A4 -0.12 A4 -0.22 B2 -0.09 B3 -0.09 B4 -0.19 B3 0.08 B4 -0.09 B4 -0.18 C2 -0.02 C3 0.00 C4 -0.05 C3 0.03 C4 -0.03 C4 -0.05 Subgroups S.D. Minimum 0.01 0.14 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.25 0.02 0.16 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.14 0.02 0.08 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.37 0.02 0.25 0.02 0.08 Descriptive statistics September 201 test among the groups for the tested materials analyze the effect of each acidic drinks on the three tested materials as shown consist of both descriptive and ANOVA test, Vinegars had the highest mean value for increasing surface roughness tested groups followed by Red bull drink, while orange juice had the lowest increase in surface roughness values materials. ANOVA test showed that there was a high significant differences (p roughness increase for all tested composite materials. for acidic drinks on each material <0.001) among the composite materials for each type of ac shown in table (6 M. Differe p-value -0.12 .000 -0.02 .077 -0.24 .000 0.10 .000 -0.12 .000 -0.22 .000 -0.09 .000 -0.09 .759 -0.19 .000 0.08 .000 -0.09 .000 -0.18 .000 -0.02 .006 0.00 .895 -0.05 .000 0.03 .001 -0.03 .002 -0.05 .000 Minimum Maxim um F-tesrt 0.14 0.16 0.07 0.12 0.02 0.08 0.25 0.29 0.16 0.21 0.06 0.08 0.14 0.24 0.08 0.13 0.03 0.07 0.37 0.40 0.25 0.31 0.08 0.12 82.835 398.052 99.862 669.949 2016 test among the groups for the tested materials analyze the effect of each acidic drinks on the d materials as shown consist of both descriptive and ANOVA test, Vinegars had the highest mean value for increasing surface roughness followed by Red bull drink, while orange juice had the lowest increase in surface values on all the tested composite ANOVA test showed that there was a high significant differences (p< roughness increase for all tested composite for acidic drinks on each material ) among the subgroup of the composite materials for each type of ac shown in table (6) and fig (3). p-value sig HS NS HS HS HS HS HS NS HS HS HS HS HS NS HS HS HS HS F-tesrt p-value .000 82.835 .000 .000 398.052 .000 99.862 669.949 Comparison Effect of test among the groups for the tested materials analyze the effect of each acidic drinks on the d materials as shown in table (5 consist of both descriptive and ANOVA test, Vinegars had the highest mean value for increasing surface roughness value Ra on all the followed by Red bull drink, while orange juice had the lowest increase in surface on all the tested composite ANOVA test showed that there was a high < 0.001) in surface roughness increase for all tested composite for acidic drinks on each material subgroup of the composite materials for each type of acidic drinks as ). p-value sig Comparison HS HS HS HS Effect of Acidic and analyze the effect of each acidic drinks on the in table (5), which consist of both descriptive and ANOVA test, Vinegars had the highest mean value for on all the followed by Red bull drink, while orange juice had the lowest increase in surface on all the tested composite ANOVA test showed that there was a high ) in surface roughness increase for all tested composite subgroup of the tested idic drinks as Acidic and J BagJ Bagh College Dentistry Restorative Dentistry Table 6 the tested materials according to acidic Fig. 3 drinks on the three tested composite Another analysis were difference immersion in all tested drinks equation: after The data revealed tha all tested composite materials water fol Δ Ra of roughness increase was in Vinegars and Red bull drinks as shown in table (7 Table 7 before surface roughness values. Vinger Control Red bull Media Orange juice 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 h College Dentistry Restorative Dentistry 6: Tukey test between the subgroup of the tested materials according to acidic 3: Chart show drinks on the three tested composite Another analysis were difference of roughness increasing immersion in all tested drinks ation: after-before= Δ Ra The data revealed tha all tested composite materials followed by the orange juice and the highest of roughness increase was in Vinegars and bull drinks as shown in table (7 7: Δ Ra difference before surface roughness values. B1 C1 B1 C1 B2 C2 B2 C2 B3 C3 B3 C3 B4 C4 B4 C4 A4 A1 A2 Subgroups Orange juice A3 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Distilled Water Red bull Effect of acidic drinks on surface roughness of the three composite Filtek bulk fill h College Dentistry Restorative Dentistry Tukey test between the subgroup of the tested materials according to acidic drinks showed the effect of acidic drinks on the three tested composite Another analysis were made to determine the of roughness increasing immersion in all tested drinks before= Δ Ra(6) The data revealed that the lowest all tested composite materials was in distilled lowed by the orange juice and the highest of roughness increase was in Vinegars and bull drinks as shown in table (7 : Δ Ra difference between after and before surface roughness values. B1 0.06 C1 0.10 C1 0.04 B2 0.09 C2 0.20 C2 0.11 B3 0.07 C3 0.13 C3 0.06 B4 0.11 C4 0.29 C4 0.18 Mean Difference Red bull Fresh Orange juice Effect of acidic drinks on surface roughness of the three composite Filtek bulk fill Sonic fill h College Dentistry Vol. 2 Tukey test between the subgroup of the tested materials according to acidic the effect of acidic drinks on the three tested composite made to determine the of roughness increasing Δ Ra after immersion in all tested drinks by using this lowestΔ Ra value was in distilled lowed by the orange juice and the highest of roughness increase was in Vinegars and bull drinks as shown in table (7) and fig (4 between after and before surface roughness values. .000 HS .000 HS .000 HS .000 HS .000 HS .000 HS .000 HS .000 HS .000 HS .000 HS .000 HS .000 HS sigp-value Fresh Orange juice Vinegar Effect of acidic drinks on surface roughness of the three composite Filtek p60 Vol. 28(3), September 12 Tukey test between the subgroup of the effect of acidic made to determine the after by using this for was in distilled lowed by the orange juice and the highest of roughness increase was in Vinegars and (4). between after and Fig composite after immersion in acidic drinks DISCUSSION physical and chemical properties, surface roughness is still the limitation on the longevity of the restoration materials roughness solutions (4) Base line surface roughness measurements mean values for Filtek composite were ( were (0. (0. values (Ra) than bulk fill posterior composite attributed to of filler content present in Filtek p 60 then composite then Filtek bulkfill posterior composite, of previous studies of composite is related to the size of filler parti particles exhibited higher surface roughness. effect of silane surface treatment on the fillers surface degradation may be happened when the filler and the bonded, this might be attributed to insufficient surface treatment with silane was thought to result in filler erosion and it has been suggested that silanization of filler particles plays an important role as does the type of based composites Influence of distilled water on the three types of composite: surface roughness value materials than the other acidic drinks September 201 Fig. 4: A chart show composite after immersion in acidic drinks DISCUSSION Despite the improvement in composite resins physical and chemical properties, surface roughness is still the limitation on the longevity of the restoration(10) materials have shown roughness value solutions for 1month ). ase line surface roughness measurements In this study the baseline surface roughness mean values for Filtek composite were ( were (0.09)µm (0.046)µm as shown in table Filtek p 60 had the lowest values (Ra) than lk fill posterior composite attributed to (1) of filler particles content present in Filtek p 60 then composite then Filtek bulkfill posterior composite, these result of previous studies of composite is related to the size of filler particles with increasing of filler size and volume particles exhibited higher surface roughness. (2) Type of resin matrix effect of silane surface treatment on the fillers surface degradation may be happened when the filler and the bonded, this might be attributed to insufficient surface treatment with silane was thought to result in filler erosion and it has been suggested that silanization of filler particles plays an important role as does the type of based composites Influence of distilled water on the three types of composite: Distilled water ex surface roughness value materials than the other acidic drinks 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Distilled Water Filtek bulkfill 2016 chart showed composite after immersion in acidic drinks for one month. DISCUSSION Despite the improvement in composite resins physical and chemical properties, surface roughness is still the limitation on the longevity of (10),in this study all tested composite have shown increase value after immersion in acidic for 1month as shown in table (7 ase line surface roughness measurements In this study the baseline surface roughness mean values for Filtek composite were (0.14)µm for Sonic fill composite µm and for Filtek p 60 were as shown in table Filtek p 60 had the lowest values (Ra) than Sonic fill lk fill posterior composite (1) the size, volume and distribution particles, from table (1 content present in Filtek p 60 then composite then Filtek bulkfill posterior these results agreed with the findings of previous studies (10) who found that roughness of composite is related to the size of filler cles with increasing of filler size and volume particles exhibited higher surface roughness. of resin matrix effect of silane surface treatment on the fillers surface degradation may be happened when the filler and the matrix resin were too weakly bonded, this might be attributed to insufficient surface treatment with silane was thought to result in filler erosion and it has been suggested that silanization of filler particles plays an important role as does the type of the resin used in the resin based composites (11). Influence of distilled water on the three types Distilled water exhibited less reduction on surface roughness value Ra materials than the other acidic drinks Distilled Water Red bull Filtek bulkfill Sonic fill Effect of Δ Ra for the three composite after immersion in acidic drinks for one month. Despite the improvement in composite resins physical and chemical properties, surface roughness is still the limitation on the longevity of in this study all tested composite increase in their surface after immersion in acidic as shown in table (7 ase line surface roughness measurements In this study the baseline surface roughness mean values for Filtek Bulkfill for Sonic fill composite and for Filtek p 60 were as shown in table (7). Filtek p 60 had the lowest surface roughness composite and Filtek lk fill posterior composite which could be , volume and distribution table (1) the high filler content present in Filtek p 60 then composite then Filtek bulkfill posterior s agreed with the findings who found that roughness of composite is related to the size of filler cles with increasing of filler size and volume particles exhibited higher surface roughness. of resin matrix (table 1) and effect of silane surface treatment on the fillers surface degradation may be happened when the matrix resin were too weakly bonded, this might be attributed to insufficient surface treatment with silane was thought to result in filler erosion and it has been suggested that silanization of filler particles plays an important the resin used in the resin Influence of distilled water on the three types hibited less reduction on of the three composite materials than the other acidic drinks Fresh Orange juice Vinegar Sonic fill Filtek p60 Effect of Acidic and Δ Ra for the three composite after immersion in acidic drinks Despite the improvement in composite resins physical and chemical properties, surface roughness is still the limitation on the longevity of in this study all tested composite in their surface after immersion in acidic as shown in table (7) and fig. ase line surface roughness measurements In this study the baseline surface roughness posterior for Sonic fill composite and for Filtek p 60 were surface roughness composite and Filtek which could be , volume and distribution the high filler Sonicfill composite then Filtek bulkfill posterior s agreed with the findings who found that roughness of composite is related to the size of filler cles with increasing of filler size and volume particles exhibited higher surface roughness. and (3) the effect of silane surface treatment on the fillers, so surface degradation may be happened when the matrix resin were too weakly bonded, this might be attributed to insufficient surface treatment with silane was thought to result in filler erosion and it has been suggested that silanization of filler particles plays an important the resin used in the resin Influence of distilled water on the three types hibited less reduction on of the three composite after one Vinegar Filtek p60 Acidic and J Bagh College Dentistry Vol. 28(3), September 2016 Effect of Acidic and Restorative Dentistry 13 month as shown in table (7) and figure (4) in which Filtek p 60 had a lowest Δ Ra (0.001) µm then Sonicfill composite had Δ Ra value (0.002)µm and Filtek bulkfill posterior composite had Δ Ra value (0.01) µm this represent the lowest values for increasing surface roughness as compared to the other tested drinks and this can be explained by(1) neutral PH for water (12) (2) Another explanation to this increasing in Ra values may be attributed to the water absorption and hydrolytic degradation of the filler surface caused by filler/matrix cracking, this depend on type of resin such as UDMA exhibit functional groups (i.e. hydroxyls) that are prone to form hydrogen-bond with water molecules (11), thereby being able to absorb and retain in their resultant polymers a certain amount of water (13), Bis-GMA copolymer is highly susceptible to chemical softening, with a broad increasing range of solubility parameters. The extent of softening of Bis-GMA copolymer depended on the soaking chemicals, BisEMA (Ethoxylated Bis-phenol A Methacrylate) unlike the Bis-GMA, does not present the pendant hydroxyl groups that form the hydrogen bonds among the molecules and increase viscosity (14). As shown in table (1) Filtek bulkfill posterior composite resin composed mainly from UDMA while Sonicfill resin mainly Bis-EMA while Filtek p60 resin composed from Bis-GMA, UDMA and Bis-EMA. This results are in agreement with previous studies (13,15,16). Also resin composite materials that can absorb water capable of absorbing other acidic fluids resulting in surface degradation.it is assumed that water acts as a conductor for the acidic penetration into the resin matrix (13). Distilled water was selected instead of artificial saliva to simulate the washing effect of saliva and also the artificial saliva storage medium is not considered to be a more clinically relevant environment, in addition previous studies (13) evaluated the influence of storage media upon the micromorphology of the resin based materials and achieved similar results for distilled water and artificial saliva Influence of acidic drinks on the three types of composite: In this study surface roughness values for the three composite materials had a high significant increase after immersion in Vinegars than Red bull drinks and the lowest increase in Fresh Orange juice after 1 month, with highest mean value for Filtek Bulkfill posterior composite than Sonicfill composite and the lowest mean value for Filtek p60 as shown in tables (5, 6) and figure (3). This can be related (1) potency of the acidic drinks, it is assumed that this finding is related to the titratable acidity as shown in table (2), in which Vinegars had lowest pH value (2.5), Red bull had pH value of (3.11) and fresh Orange juice had pH value of (3.5). The probable mechanism of acidity in composite resin degradation may be explained by the hydrolysis of ester radicals present in dimethacrylatemonomer, i.e. Bis-GMA, Bis-EMA, UDMA and TEGDMA. Although previous studies assumed PH as a reliable indicator of the acidity of the drinks, this parameter gives only the initial concentration of +H ions and does not represent the presence of undissociated acid in the medium. So titratable acidity can be considered as amore accurate measure of the total acid content present in substances and may represent their erosive effect more realistically this finding is in agreement with previous studies (17). (2) Chemical composition,the kind of acid in the solutions might have reduced the surface hardness of the tested restorative materials. It has been reported that organic fillers can be damaged by citric acid (18). In this study energy drinks contained citric acid and low PH value (3.11) as shown in table (2) they were found to be the one of the most aggressive storage medium for the composite as in tables (5,7) and figures ( 3,4) they have highly significant effect on surface roughness value Ra and ΔRa on the tested composite materials and this finding in agreement with previous studies (17,18) also an attempt to decrease erosion potential of beverage have been made by adding calcium, increasing their PH or adding ingredients such as casein, phosphopeptide stabilized amorphous calcium phosphate(19). For Orange juice there was non -significant increase in surface roughness value Ra and Δ Ra as shown in tables (3,5,6) and diagrams of the three composite materials in spite of it is acidity (contain citric acid) and (3.5) pH value as shown in table (2)this result could be due to it is calcium and phosphours content(17). This finding in agreement with (17,19,20). Vinegar have (acetic acid 5-8%) and lowest PH value (2.5) among the tested drinks as shown in table (2) and have a highly significant increase in surface roughness value Ra for all tested material as shown in tables (4,5,7) although acetic acid is a weak acid but the speciation of weak acids in aqueous systems is depend on solution PH also the erosive capability of acidic drinks will be determined by the individual PH value, titratable amount of base as well as the phosphate and fluoride content (17). This result was agreed with previous studies (17). Finally it is important to notice that surface roughness means measure between 0.5 to 10 J Bagh College Dentistry Vol. 28(3), September 2016 Effect of Acidic and Restorative Dentistry 14 (clinically unacceptable) were sufficient for retaining most of bacteria and thus not protected against removal forces (21). In this study Δ Ra and Ra values before and after table (7) showed that all the tested materials had values of Δ Ra and Ra parameter which is clinically acceptable. In conclusion, all types of acidic drinks used in this study can cause surface degradation on composite material. The effect of energy and acidic drinks depend upon it is composition and acidity. REFERENCES 1. Catelan A, Briso AL, Sundfeld RH, Santos PH. Effect of artificial aging on the roughness and microhardness of sealed composites. J Esthet Restor Dent 2010; 22: 324-30. 2. Voltarelli FR, Santos-Daroz CB, Alves MC, Cavalcanti AN, Marchi GM. Effect of chemical degradation followed by tooth brushing on the surface roughness of restorative composites. J Appl Oral Sci 2010; 18: 585-90. 3. Miranda DA, Bertoldo CE, Aguiar FH, Lima DA, Lovadino JR. Effects of mouthwashes on Knoop hardness and surface roughness of dental composites after different immersion times. Braz Oral Res 2011; 25:168-73. 4. Didem A. Gozde Y. Comparative mechanical properties of Bulkfill resins. Open J Composite Materials 2014; 4:117-21. 5. Sarrett DC. A Laboratory evaluation of bulk-fill versus traditional multi-increment–fill resin-based composites. ADA 2013; 8: 13-26. 6. Al-Samadani KhH. Effect of energy drinks on the surface texture of Nanofilled composite resin. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013;14(5): 830-5. 7. Ibarra E, Lien W, Vandewalle K, Casey J, Dixon S. Physical properties of a new sonically activated composite restorative material. Inter Assoc Dent Res 2013; 3: 51-6. 8. Ruschel VC, Basso GR, de Andrada MAC, Maia HP. Effects of different polishing systems on the surface roughness and microhardness of a silorane-based composite. Applied Adhesion Sci 2014; 2:7. 9. Erdemir U, Yildiz E, Eren MM, Ozel S. Surface hardness evaluation of different composite resin materials: influence of sports and energy drinks immersion after a short-term period. J Appl Oral Sci 2013; 21(2):124-31 10. Valinot AC, Neves BG. Surface degradation of composite resin by acidic medicines and ph-cycling. J Appl Oral Sci 2008; 16: 1-11. 11. Erdemir U, Yilidiz E. Effect of sports drinks on color stability of nanofilled and micro-hybride composite after long term immersion. J Dentistry 2012; 40(2): e55-e63. 12. Turssi CP, Hara AT, Serra MC. Effect of storage media upon the surface micromorphology of resin- based restorative materials. J Oral Rehabil 2002; 29: 864-71. 13. Ferracane JL. Hygroscopic and hydrolytic effects in dental polymer networks. Dent Mater 2006; 22(3): 211–22. 14. Ajaj RA. Optical and surface properities of different Bulk fill resin composite after storage in different media. J Am Sci 2015; 11(6): 249-54. 15. Lepri CP, Palma-Dibb RG. Surface roughness and color changes of a composite: influence of beverages and brushing. Dental Material J 2012; 31(4): 689-96. 16. Catelan A, Briso AL, Sundfield RH. Effect of artificial aging on the roughness and microhardness of sealed composites. J Esthetic Restor Dent 2010; 22: 324-30. 17. Rahmati ANA, Shamsaei Z, Hashemi AP. Destructive effects of citric acid, lactic acid and acetic acid on primary enamel microhardness. J Dental School 2015; 33(1): 66-73. 18. Cochrane NJ. Yuan Y. Walker GD. Erosive potential of sport beverages. Australin Dent J 2012; 57:1-6. 19. Larsen MJ. Prevention by means of fluoride of enamel erosion as caused by soft drinks and orange juice. Caries Res.2001; 35:229-34. 20. Grobler et al. The effect of honey on human tooth enamel in vitro observed by electron microscopy and microhardness measurements. Oral Biol J 1994; 39(2):147-53. 21. Rahal JS, Mesquita MF, Henriques GEP. Surface roughness of acrylic resins submitted to mechanical and chemical polishing. J Oral Rehabil 2004; 31:1075- 9.