Volume : 5
Issue : 1
Online ISSN : 2393-9834
Print ISSN : 2320-7302
Article First Page : 66
Article End Page : 69
Aim and Objectives: The aim of the present in-vitro study was to evaluate and compare the effect of five commercially available mouthrinses i.e. Listerine, Benzydamine, Rexidine, Proflo, Hiora on the microhardness of the hybrid composite restorative material.
Materials and Method: Fifty specimens were prepared withHybrid Composite Restorative Material (Te-Econom Plus) and immersed in Saleve (artificial saliva; supplied by the manufacturer) for 24hr. The baseline microhardness of specimens was recorded using Vicker’s microhardness tester.The pH of mouthrinses was recorded with digital pH meter. All 50 specimens were divided into five groups of 10 samples each and immersed into20 ml of - Group I - Listerine (alcohol based) mouthrinse, Group II - Benzydamine (HCl based) mouthrinse,Group III- Rexidin (Chlorhex based) mouthrinse, Group IV-Proflo (fluoride containing) mouthrinse, and Group V -Hiora (alcohol free, herbal) mouthrinse and incubated for 24hr at 37ºC. After immersion the microhardness values of the specimens were recorded again and the data was tabulated for statistical analysis. Kruskal–Wallis test was used for inter group comparison followed by pairwise comparison of groups using Mann–Whitney U test.
Results: All mouthrinses tested showed decreased microhardness of the Te-Econom Plus (hybrid composite restorative material) (P<0.001). Group I-(Listerine) showed highest reduction while Group II-(Benzydamine) showed the lowest reduction in the microhardnessof the hybrid composite restorative material respectively.
Conclusion: All the five groups decreased the microhardness of the Hybrid Composite Restorative Material. The highest reduction in microhardness was found in alcohol-containing mouthrinse (Listerine).
Keywords: Microhardness, Mouthrinse, Resin composite, Vicker