Effect of charcoal-based dentifrices on the surface integrity and gloss of lithium disilicate glass-ceramics

Effect of charcoal-based dentifrices on the surface integrity and gloss of lithium disilicate glass-ceramics | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Effect of charcoal-based dentifrices on the surface integrity and gloss of lithium disilicate glass-ceramics Victor Martins Stabile, Ana Caroline Lima Colombino, Andrey Gonçalves Emídio, and 3 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6650032/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 28 Aug, 2025 Read the published version in Clinical Oral Investigations → Version 1 posted 9 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Objectives To evaluate the effects of commercially available charcoal-based dentifrices on the surface roughness and gloss retention of glazed lithium disilicate glass-ceramics subjected to simulated toothbrushing. Materials and Methods Seventy-two glazed lithium disilicate specimens (IPS e.max CAD, Ivoclar) were randomly assigned to three groups (n = 24): Carvvo (CV), Curaprox Black is White (CPBW), and Colgate Total 12 (C12 – control). Toothbrushing simulations were performed for 5.000, 10.000, and 20.000 cycles. Surface roughness (Ra) and gloss (GU) were measured at baseline and after each brushing interval. Three-dimensional profilometry and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) were used for qualitative surface characterization. Abrasive particles were analyzed using SEM. Results Charcoal-based dentifrices increased surface roughness and reduced gloss values of glazed ceramics, with CV showing the highest abrasiveness. CPBW demonstrated intermediate effects, while C12 preserved surface integrity and even enhanced gloss. Three-dimensional profilometry and SEM confirmed more pronounced surface wear in groups CV and CPBW. Abrasive particles from charcoal-based dentifrices were irregular, larger, and sharper compared to the spherical and uniform particles in C12. Conclusions Charcoal-based dentifrices significantly compromise the surface quality of lithium disilicate glass-ceramics by increasing roughness and reducing gloss, which may affect esthetics and long-term performance. Conventional dentifrice had no deleterious effect on ceramic surfaces. Clinical Relevance The routine use of charcoal-containing toothpastes by patients with ceramic restorations may accelerate surface wear and reduce optical properties, compromising the longevity and esthetic outcomes of restorative treatments. Dentifrices Charcoal Ceramics Toothbrushing Dental Materials Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 1. Introduction The habit of brushing teeth with charcoal has become popular due to media and social networks [ 1 ]. The population seeks ways to improve smile aesthetics and, when encountering products that promise whitening effects and easy access for purchase, they adopt the practice. Charcoal-based dentifrices are sold over the internet, in supermarkets, and pharmacies without the need for a dentist's prescription or supervision [ 2 ]. In addition to the whitening effect, manufacturers of these toothpastes also claim some benefits, such as antibacterial and antifungal action, reduction in the incidence of cavities, and others. However, there is no scientific evidence that effectively proves these claims in the oral environment [ 3 ]. Furthermore, there is no evidence regarding the safety of their use [ 4 , 5 ]. Additionally, these dentifrices not containing fluorides in their composition and activated charcoal has a high adsorption capacity, which can remove deposits of fluoride and other ions that aid in the process of dental remineralization [ 6 – 8 ]. Previous studies indicate that this type of dentifrices can cause damage to dental tissues due to its high abrasiveness, increasing surface roughness and influencing enamel hardness [ 9 – 13 ]. In restorative materials, such as composite resin, in a short period, it can lead to discoloration, surface wear, increased roughness, and decreased surface hardness [ 14 – 17 ]. Lithium disilicate glass-ceramics, are a widely used definitive restorative material in dentistry due to its high mechanical strength, biocompatibility, and translucency [ 18 , 19 ]. Its indication is extensive serving both for aesthetic rehabilitations, such as ceramic laminates in anterior teeth, and functional ones, such as in cases of total crowns, inlays, onlays, etc [ 20 ]. In this type of material, a thin layer of glaze is applied to the surface to increase smoothness and shine, giving the material a natural appearance [ 21 – 23 ]. Authors have reported that brushing dental ceramics with charcoal causes changes in surface gloss after 50.000 cycles of brushing simulation, which can decrease the longevity of the restoration and patient satisfaction post-rehabilitation [ 24 ]. Studies on the effects of these dentifrices on lithium disilicate glass ceramics are scarce and limited, considering only optical properties at the expense of surface effects, such as roughness. Evaluating this type of effect is crucial since increased roughness can lead to reduced shine and greater biofilm accumulation [ 25 ]. Therefore, the aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of commercial benchmark dentifrices containing activated charcoal on the surface wear of glazed lithium disilicate ceramics. The hypotheses tested are: 1) Charcoal-based dentifrices increases surface roughness of ceramic; 2) The number of brushing-cycles increase the roughness according to type of dentifrice; 3) Brushing with different types of dentifrices influences surface gloss retention; and 4) The number of brushing-cycles influences surface gloss retention. 2. Material and Method 2.1. Sample Preparation Seventy-two specimens of lithium disilicate from commercial benchmark were fabricated (CAD-CAM IPS e.max CAD Ivoclar, Schaan, Liechtenstein, HT - A1). The blocks were transversely sectioned (12.0 mm in width, 14.0 mm in length, and 1.2 mm in thickness) using a precision cutting machine (Isomet 1000, Buehler, Lake Bluff, IL, USA) with a diamond disc (EXTEC; Enfield, CT, USA) at low speed and constant water cooling. Sintering was performed following the manufacturer's recommendations, at 403°C for 24 minutes in a ceramic furnace (Austromat - DEKEMA, Dental-Keramiköfen GmgH, Freilassing, Germany). The specimens were polishing using silicon carbide sandpapers of progressive finer grit sizes #400, #600, #1200, and #2000 (Buehler, Lake Bluff, IL, USA) under constant water cooling and polished with felt discs and diamond pastes of 1 µm and 0.25 µm granulations (Arotec S/A Ind. e Com, Cotia, SP, Brazil) to obtain flat surfaces. Glazing was executed with IPS Ivocolor Glaze Paste FLUO (Ivoclar, Schaan, Liechtenstein) and IPS Ivocolor Mixing Liquid Allround (Ivocar, Schaan, Liechtenstein). Glaze sintering followed the manufacturer's instructions at 403°C for 24 minutes in a ceramic furnace (Austromat - DEKEMA, Dental-Keramiköfen GmgH, Freilassing, Germany). The specimens randomly divided into three groups (n = 24): CV – powdered activated charcoal dentifrice (Carvvo, Salvador, BA, Brazil); CPBW – dentifrice containing activated charcoal (Curaprox Black is White, Curaden AG, Krien, Switzerland); and C12 – conventional dentifrice without charcoal, control group (Colgate Total 12, Colgate-Palmolive Company, São Paulo, SP, Brazil). Information on the dentifrices is shown in Table 1 . Table 1 Composition of dentifrices and manufacturer Product/Group Manufacturer Composition* Carvvo (CV) Carvvo, Salvador, BA, Brazil. Activated charcoal, kaolin clay, and Orange essential oil. Curaprox Black is White (CPBW) Curaden AG, Krien, Switzerland. Sodium monofluorophosphate (950 ppm fluoride), water, sorbitol, hydrated silica, glycerin, charcoal powder, aroma, decyl glucoside, cocamidopropyl betaine, tocopherol, xanthan gum, maltodextrin, mica, hydroxyapatite (nano), potassium acesulfame, titanium dioxide, microcrystalline cellulose, sodium chloride, potassium chloride, citrus limon peel oil, sodium hydroxide, zea mays starch, amiloglucosidase, glucose oxidase, urtica dioica leaf extract, potassium thiocyanate, cetearyl alcohol, lecithin hydrogenated, mentil lactate, menthyl diisopropyl propionamide, ethyl methane carboxamide, stearic acid, mannitol, sodium bisulito, tin oxide, lactoperoxidase, and limonen. Colgate Total 12 (C12) Colgate-Palmolive Company, São Paulo, SP, Brazil. Sodium monofluorophosphate (1450 ppm fluoride), calcium carbonate, water, glycerin, sodium lauryl sulfate, cellulose gum, aroma, tetrasodium pyrophosphate, sodium bicarbonate, benzyl alcohol, sodium saccharin, and sodium hydroxide. *Manufacturer data 2.2. Brushing Protocol Specimens were fixed using hot-melted adhesive to a brushing machine (Brushing Machine X; Biopdi, São Carlos, SP, Brazil) with the polished and glazed surface exposed to the toothbrush (Oral B Professional Care 5000 Oral B; Schwalbacham Taunus, Germany). The CPBW and CV slurry were prepared with deionized water in a 1:3 dilution (by weight). The activated charcoal powder followed the same ratio, where 1 g of powder was dissolved in 3 mL of deionized water. The specimens were brushed under a vertical load of 200 gF for 5.000, 10.000, and 20.000 brushing cycles in the presence of 4 mL of slurry [ 15 ]. 2.3. Roughness Analysis Surface roughness was mensured in baseline and after each brushing-cycle using a surface rugosimeter (Surfcorder SE 1700, Kosaka Corp., Tokyo, Japan). Each specimen was analyzed in three different orientations, with a distance of 2.5 mm, scanning speed of 0.05 mm/second and a cutoff of 0.25 mm. The surface roughness (Ra), expressed in micrometers (µm), was obtained by means of the 3 measurements [ 26 ]. 2.4. Surface gloss Analysis Surface gloss analysis was also mensured in baseline and after each brushing-cycle. A gloss meter (GZM 1120 Glossmeter, Zehntner GmbH Testing Instrument, Sissach, Switzerland) was used for this purpose. The instrument was calibrated and positioned parallel to the specimen. The angle of 60° was used as the parameter. The results were obtained in Gloss Units (GU). Three gloss measurements were performed. The mean of these measurements was considered for statistical analysis [ 27 ]. 2.5. Three-dimensional Profilometric Analysis Three specimens from each group were analyzed in baseline and after each brushing cycle using a 3D profilometer (Proscan 2100, Scantron, Venture Way, Tauton, UK) set to go through 200 x 0.01 mm steps on the x-axis, and 10 x 0.1 mm steps on the y-axis. A 2 mm (x-axis) by 1 mm (y-axis) area was scanned from the specimen's center. Three-dimensional images were generated using Proscan Application software version 2.0.17, Scantron Ltd. The profilometry images were employed for qualitative surface analysis. 2.6. Surface Characterization Two specimens from each group were randomly selected at baseline and after each brushing cycle for surface characterization using a Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM). The specimens were sputter-coated with gold (SCD 050 Sputter Coater, Capovani Brothers Inc, New York, USA) and then examined under the SEM (JSM 5600LV, JEOL, Tokyo, Japan). The analyses were conducted at 1.000x magnification, with a voltage 15 kV, beam width of 25–30 nm, and working distance 10–15 nm. 2.7. Abrasive particles characterization 1 g of each dentifrice was diluted in 6 mL of deionized water and centrifuged at 1.000 rpm for 5 minutes (Excelsa Centrifuge, model 206, FANEM, São Paulo, Brazil). This procedure was repeated until obtaining a clear supernatant. The decanted abrasive particles were dried for 24 hours at 37ºC in an incubator (FANEM, São Paulo, Brazil). The particles were placed on stubs and supetter-coated with gold (SCD 050 Sputter Coater, Capovani Brothers Inc, New York, USA) for SEM analysis (JSM 5600LV, JEOL, Tokyo, Japan). Characterization was performed at 2.000x magnification, with a voltage 15 kV, a beam width 25–30 nm, and a working distance 10–15 nm [ 15 , 16 ]. 2.8. Statistical Analysis The normal distribution was confirmed using the Shapiro-Wilk test, and the data were analyzed by 2-way repeated measures ANOVA followed by Tukey's post-hoc test (α = 0.05). The analyses were performed using ASSISTAT Version 7.7 software. 3. Results 3.1. Roughness For roughness on the ceramic surface after brushing cycle with different dentifrices are shown in Table 2 . The CV showed roughness values higher than C12 (p = 0.002). No statistical difference was observed between CV and CPBW, (p = 0,179) and CPBW and C12 (p = 0.227). When brushing cycles was compared, no difference was observed between baseline, and 5.000, 10.000, and 20.000 cycles (p = 0.15). Table 2 Mean of roughness-Ra and standard derivation (µm) for the dentifrices and brushing cycle. Brushing cycle Dentifrício Baseline 5.000 10.000 20.000 Mean per dentifrice CV 0.0864 (0,02) 0.1438 (0,17) 0.0875 (0,05) 0.1951 (0,09) A CPBW 0.0793 (0,01) 0.1223 (0,11) 0.1028 (0,12) 0.0910 (0,05) AB C12 0.0744 (0,01) 0.0682 (0,008) 0.0762 (0,009) 0.0676 (0,008) B Mean per cycle a a a a Values followed by the different uppercase superscript in the column and lowercase subscript in the row are statistically different. 3.2. Surface gloss Table 3 presents the mean surface gloss values (GU). The mean values of GU on baseline were higher than 20.000 cycles (p = 0.003) in relation to CV and CPBW. However, no difference was found between baseline, 5.000 and 10.000 cycles for CV (p = 0.967). It is important to note that the same was observed among baseline and 5.000 cycles (p = 0.438), and 5.000 and 10.000 cycles for CPBW (p = 1.000). C12 group showed similar results GU in the different brushing cycles. The GU of C12 after 5.000, 10.000 and 20.000 cycles were higher than CV and CPBW (p < 0.001). Table 3 Means of surface gloss and standard deviation (GU) for the dentifrices and brushing-cycle. Brushing cycle Baseline 5.000 10.000 20.000 CV 80.77 (12.2) Aa 79.58 (12.2) Ab 74.59 (12.2) Ab 67.41 (11.2) Bb CPBW 86.39 (8.6) Aa 82.1 (9.3) ABb 78.16 (8.7) Bb 69.62 (9.6) Cb C12 87.94 (6.6) Ba 96.53 (1.7) Aa 97.52 (1.2) Aa 95.97 (1.4) Aa Values followed by the different lowercase subscript within the same column and uppercase superscript in the same row are statistically different (p < 0.05). 3.3. Three-dimensional Profilometric 3D profilometry images are shown in the Fig. 1 . It is notable that for the charcoal dentifrices (lines 1 and 2), there is a greater discrepancy in peaks and valleys on the surface, indicated by a higher presence of red points. Conversely, for the conventional dentifrice (line 3), this discrepancy is considerably reduced, as predominantly green color indicates greater surface stability in this condition. 3.4. Surface Characterization The images of the ceramic surfaces obtained by SEM are showed in Fig. 2 . Consistent with the three-dimensional profilometry images, the specimens subjected to activated charcoal-containing dentifrices (lines 1 and 2) exhibit greater depth and a higher quantity of scratches compared to the conventional dentifrice (line 3), especially after 20.000 brushing cycles. The black arrow indicates scratches on the surface of the specimens. The black triangle indicates points to areas of glaze delamination. The index finger indicates points to a likely charcoal particle adsorbed on the surface. Overall, there appears to be no effect from brushing with the conventional dentifrice, regardless of the evaluation period. 3.5. Abrasive particles characterization SEM images of the abrasive particles are shown in Fig. 3 . CV (Fig. 3 .a) exhibits particles of varying sizes, irregular shapes, and sharp edges. CPBW (Fig. 3 .b) displays irregularly shaped particles with varying sizes and sharp angles, where smaller spherical particles form clusters and cover larger particles. C12 (Fig. 3 .c) showcases particles with more regular and spherical shapes, with little variation in size. 4. Discussion Charcoal-based dentifrices have been shown an increase surface roughness of ceramic. However, brushing cycle did not contribute to surface wear. Therefore, the first hypothesis was accepted, while the second hypothesis was rejected. According to the ISO 11609 dentifrices are classified based on their abrasiveness using Relative Dentin Abrasion (RDA). RDA up to 70 are considered low abrasiveness, from 71 to 100 as medium abrasiveness, from 101 to 150 as high abrasiveness, and above 151 as very high abrasiveness. The dentifrices manufacturer reports the RDA: CV = 90, CPBW = 50 and C12 = 68 [ 4 ]. Nevertheless, according to findings, CV demonstrated higher abrasive than C12, while CPBW exhibited intermediate abrasiveness. These outcomes may be influenced by the commercial form of the dentifrice (paste or powder), in addition to the geometry and particle size of the abrasive componentes [ 2 ]. Dentifrices in paste form contain components that decrease the concentration of abrasive particles. On the other hand, powder-based dentifrices essentially consist of abrasive particles (Table 1 ). Regarding these studies, it can be speculated that a higher concentration of abrasive particles would lead to a more abrasive effect [ 7 ]. The size, shape, and hardness of the particles influence surface wear [ 3 ]. Irregular shapes, sharp angles, sizes larger than 20 µm, and hardness exceeding that of the abraded surface result in greater wear [ 8 ]. SEM analysis revealed a higher quantity of irregularly shaped particles of varying sizes with sharp angles in the CV group (Fig. 3 .a), leading to upper average roughness values, classifying it as the most abrasive dentifrice. The C12 particles are spherical with a regular surface and rounded edges (Fig. 3 .c), resulting in lower average roughness values and exhibiting lesser abrasive characteristics. CPBW (Fig. 3 .b) displays both irregular particles with sharp angles (similar to CV) and spherical particles with regular surfaces and rounded edges (similar to C12), explaining its classification with intermediate abrasiveness. Although the analysis of variance of roughness suggests that brushing cycle is not a significant factor, the three-dimensional profilometry shows progressive surface wear (Fig. 1 ). This method is more sensitive than the contact profilometer 9 . This observation is also evident in the SEM images (Fig. 2 ). The GU data indicate that both type of dentifrice and brushing cycle influence the gloss retention on glazed lithium disilicate glass ceramic. Thus, the third hypothesis and the fourth hypothesis are accepted. The C12 shows a higher gloss after 5.000 brushing cycles, indicating that the toothpaste can polish without adversely affecting the material surface. This increase in gloss is not perceptible to human eye, due to alterations beyond 70 GU are not distinguishable [ 14 ]. The CV caused a reduction in gloss below 70 GU, making a clinically relevant alteration. These findings also align with the surface characterization (Fig. 2 ) and three-dimensional profilometry analysis (Fig. 1 ), where evident surface alteration was observed. CPBW, despite being classified with intermediate abrasiveness in the study, exhibited a fall in gloss below 70 GU. This might be associated with areas of glaze delamination caused by the dentifrice during the brushing protocol. Additionally, the activated charcoal has ions adsorption properties [ 6 ], which may cause an adherence to the surface and interfere in the gloss analysis. The present study has some limitations. First, only one type and one commercial benchmark of ceramic and glaze were evaluated. Additionally, replicating the oral environment in an in vitro setting is challenging; although deionized water was used to prepare the slurry, the presence of saliva in the oral cavity could potentially influence the outcomes [ 12 ]. Further studies are warranted to assess the long-term retention of the glaze and the bacterial adhesion to the surface in order to validate the findings of this investigation. 5. Conclusion Charcoal-based dentifrice has a detrimental effect on the surface of glazed lithium disilicate ceramics, potentially compromising their optical properties, especially gloss and surface roughness. In contrast, conventional dentifrice did not cause significant damage to the material, suggesting it as a more suitable option for patients. Declarations Conflict of Interest: none. Funding: This work was supported by Coordination of Higher Level Personnel Improvement (CAPES), code 001. Ethical Approval: Not Applicable. Informed Consent: Not Applicable. Author Contribution V.M.S: Writing – review & editing, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Conceptualization. A.C.L.C: Writing – review&editing, Methodology, Investigation, Data curation. AGE: Conceptualization, Project administration.LCS: Writing –review & editing, Supervision. RCBA: . Writing –review & editing, Validation, Supervision, Project administration, Formal analysis.RMPR: Validation, Supervision, Conceptualization, Supervision. Acknowledgement The Coordination of Higher Level Personnel Improvement (CAPES) by the financial support (Code 001). References Brooks JK, Bashirelahi N, Reynolds MA (2017) Charcoal and charcoal-based dentifrices: a literature review. J Am Dent Assoc 148(9):661–670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adaj.2017.05.001 Gonzalez-Cabezas C, Hara AT, Hefferren J, Lippert F (2013) Abrasivity testing of dentifrices—challenges and current state of the art. Monogr Oral Sci 23:100–107. https://doi.org/10.1159/000350476 Jefferies SR (2007) Abrasive finishing and polishing in restorative dentistry: a state-of-the-art review. Dent Clin North Am 51(2):379–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2006.12.002 Hamza B, Tanner M, Attin T, Wegehaupt FJ (2020) Dentin abrasivity and cleaning efficacy of novel/alternative toothpastes. Oral Health Prev Dent 18(1):713–718. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.ohpd.a45323 Viana IEL, Weiss GS, Sakae LO, Niemeyer SH, Borges AB, Scaramucci T (2021) Activated charcoal toothpastes do not increase erosive tooth wear. J Dent 109:103677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103677 Janardhana C, Nageswara Rao G, Sathish S et al (2007) Study on defluoridation of drinking water using zirconium ion impregnated activated charcoals. Indian J Chem Technol 14:350–355 Ganss C, Marten J, Hara A et al (2016) Toothpastes and enamel erosion/abrasion—impact of active ingredients and the particulate fraction. J Dent 54:62–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2016.09.004 Singh RP, Sharma S, Logani A, Shah N, Singh S (2016) Comparative evaluation of tooth substance loss and its correlation with the abrasivity and chemical composition of different dentifrices. Indian J Dent Res 27(6):630–636. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-9290.199589 O’Mahony C, Hill M, Brunet M, Duane R, Mathewson A (2003) Characterization of micromechanical structures using white-light interferometry. Meas Sci Technol 14(10):1807–1814. https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-0233/14/10/308 Greenwall LH, Greenwall-Cohen J, Wilson NHF (2019) Charcoal-containing dentifrices. Br Dent J 226(9):697–700. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-019-0235-1 Palandi SDS, Kury M, Picolo MZD, Coelho CSS, Cavalli V (2020) Effects of activated charcoal powder combined with toothpastes on enamel color change and surface properties. J Esthet Restor Dent 32(8):783–790. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12589 Koc Vural U, Bagdatli Z, Yilmaz AE, Altundasar E, Gurgan S (2021) Effects of charcoal-based whitening toothpastes on human enamel in terms of color, surface roughness, and microhardness: an in vitro study. Clin Oral Investig 25(10):5977–5985. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-03883-7 Emídio AG, Silva VF, Melo FR, Ribeiro EP et al (2022) In vitro assessment of activated charcoal-based dental products. J Esthet Restor Dent 34(1):8–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12982 Takahashi R, Jin J, Nikaido T, Tagami J, Hickel R, Kunzelmann KH (2013) Surface characterization of current composites after toothbrush abrasion. Dent Mater J 32(1):75–82. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2012-160 Torso VH, Fraga MAA, Lopes RM, Aranha ACC, Correr-Sobrinho L, Correr AB (2021) Charcoal-based dentifrices: effect on color stability and surface wear of resin composites. J Esthet Restor Dent 33(5):815–823. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12714 Fronza BM, Ayres A, Pacheco RR, Rueggeberg FA, Dias C, Giannini M (2017) Characterization of inorganic filler content, mechanical properties, and light transmission of bulk-fill resin composites. Oper Dent 42(4):445–455. https://doi.org/10.2341/16-024-L Binhasan M, Solimanie AH, Almuammar KS et al (2022) The effect of dentifrice on micro-hardness, surface gloss, and micro-roughness of nano filled conventional and bulk-fill polymer composite—a micro indentation and profilometric study. Mater (Basel) 15(12):4347. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15124347 Chen Y, Yeung AWK, Pow EHN, Tsoi JKH (2021) Current status and research trends of lithium disilicate in dentistry: a bibliometric analysis. J Prosthet Dent 126(4):512–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.08.012 Fouda AM, Atta O, Kassem AS, Desoky M, Bourauel C (2022) Wear behavior and abrasiveness of monolithic CAD/CAM ceramics after simulated mastication. Clin Oral Investig 26(11):6593–6605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04611-w Lindner S, Frasheri I, Hickel R, Crispin A, Kessler A (2023) Retrospective clinical study on the performance and aesthetic outcome of pressed lithium disilicate restorations in posterior teeth up to 8.3 years. Clin Oral Investig 27(12):7383–7393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-023-05328-0 Della Bona A, Kelly JR (2008) The clinical success of all-ceramic restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 139(Suppl):8S–13S Lu Y, de Oliveira Dal Piva AM, Tribst JPM, Feilzer AJ, Kleverlaan CJ (2023) Does glaze firing affect the strength of advanced lithium disilicate after simulated defects? Clin Oral Investig 27(11):6429–6438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-023-05246-1 Lu Y, Dal Piva AMO, Nedeljkovic I, Tribst JPM, Feilzer AJ, Kleverlaan CJ (2023) Effect of glazing technique and firing on surface roughness and flexural strength of an advanced lithium disilicate. Clin Oral Investig 27(7):3917–3926. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-023-05014-1 Sulaiman TA, Camino RN, Cook R, Delgado AJ, Roulet JF, Clark WA (2020) Time-lasting ceramic stains and glaze: a toothbrush simulation study. J Esthet Restor Dent 32(6):581–585. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12590 Kreve S, Dos Reis AC (2022) Effect of surface properties of ceramic materials on bacterial adhesion: a systematic review. J Esthet Restor Dent 34(3):461–472. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12799 dos Santos PH, Pavan S, Consani S, Sobrinho LC, Sinhoreti MA, Filho JN (2007) In vitro evaluation of surface roughness of 4 resin composites after the toothbrushing process and methods to recover superficial smoothness. Quintessence Int 38(5):e247–e253 Consani RLX, Folli BL, Nogueira MCF, Correr AB, Mesquita MF (2016) Effect of polymerization cycles on gloss, roughness, hardness and impact strength of acrylic resins. Braz Dent J 27(2):176–180. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440201600733 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 28 Aug, 2025 Read the published version in Clinical Oral Investigations → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 11 Jun, 2025 Reviews received at journal 09 Jun, 2025 Reviews received at journal 06 Jun, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 31 May, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 27 May, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 27 May, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 20 May, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 20 May, 2025 First submitted to journal 12 May, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6650032","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":463116936,"identity":"f40e54ca-8508-4d53-bdfa-9b9c7f7893bf","order_by":0,"name":"Victor Martins Stabile","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"São Paulo State University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Victor","middleName":"Martins","lastName":"Stabile","suffix":""},{"id":463116938,"identity":"c6cb1eaa-5f29-4cda-b065-016a89ed2ab4","order_by":1,"name":"Ana Caroline Lima Colombino","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"State University of Campinas","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ana","middleName":"Caroline Lima","lastName":"Colombino","suffix":""},{"id":463116939,"identity":"a6bb1cdc-409e-4575-a928-0e58d72174fb","order_by":2,"name":"Andrey Gonçalves Emídio","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"State University of Campinas","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Andrey","middleName":"Gonçalves","lastName":"Emídio","suffix":""},{"id":463116940,"identity":"42528192-d0a0-4f71-9f75-79813d4d0afe","order_by":3,"name":"Lourenço Correr-Sobrinho","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"State University of Campinas","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Lourenço","middleName":"","lastName":"Correr-Sobrinho","suffix":""},{"id":463116942,"identity":"0f784013-f6bd-4df9-aafa-170d6fa5706a","order_by":4,"name":"Roberta Caroline Bruschi Alonso","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"São Paulo State University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Roberta","middleName":"Caroline Bruschi","lastName":"Alonso","suffix":""},{"id":463116943,"identity":"178ca659-f92a-445c-be51-4c69553b9a8d","order_by":5,"name":"Regina Maria Puppin-Rontani","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"State University of Campinas","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Regina","middleName":"Maria","lastName":"Puppin-Rontani","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-05-13 00:08:13","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6650032/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6650032/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-025-06494-z","type":"published","date":"2025-08-28T15:56:54+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":83606034,"identity":"31bca194-c694-4650-92ec-81d2819fccb8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-29 10:46:20","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":303804,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eProfilometry of ceramic surfaces.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSurface wear obtained with 3D profilometry for lithium disilicate ceramics (baseline, 5.000, 10.000 and 20.000 brushing cycles)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6650032/v1/5c4a0e7f1f8a8e734fa4df2e.png"},{"id":83606029,"identity":"ef4b365c-238f-44f1-a9e7-5e5aa0c822ea","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-29 10:46:20","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":391728,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSEM images of ceramic surfaces\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresentative 1000x SEM images of the scratches in the samples brushed in different cycles (Baseline, 5.000, 10.000 and 20.000)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6650032/v1/aaef95b31e501d962bb5c194.png"},{"id":83606032,"identity":"05d17de6-a3dc-4ae0-a10c-7afa88d37e0a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-29 10:46:20","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":321400,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eAbrasive particles of the dentifrices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresentative 2000x SEM images of the abrasive particles of the dentifrices\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6650032/v1/628dba8511cc9af47b5a9feb.png"},{"id":90344845,"identity":"78cd0f31-b898-4dac-909a-086611ca9cf7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-01 16:05:32","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1833091,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6650032/v1/0ee815cc-7bdd-44a6-a2a2-1c3910c97ded.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Effect of charcoal-based dentifrices on the surface integrity and gloss of lithium disilicate glass-ceramics","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe habit of brushing teeth with charcoal has become popular due to media and social networks [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]. The population seeks ways to improve smile aesthetics and, when encountering products that promise whitening effects and easy access for purchase, they adopt the practice. Charcoal-based dentifrices are sold over the internet, in supermarkets, and pharmacies without the need for a dentist's prescription or supervision [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition to the whitening effect, manufacturers of these toothpastes also claim some benefits, such as antibacterial and antifungal action, reduction in the incidence of cavities, and others. However, there is no scientific evidence that effectively proves these claims in the oral environment [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]. Furthermore, there is no evidence regarding the safety of their use [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]. Additionally, these dentifrices not containing fluorides in their composition and activated charcoal has a high adsorption capacity, which can remove deposits of fluoride and other ions that aid in the process of dental remineralization [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR7\" citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrevious studies indicate that this type of dentifrices can cause damage to dental tissues due to its high abrasiveness, increasing surface roughness and influencing enamel hardness [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR10 CR11 CR12\" citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e]. In restorative materials, such as composite resin, in a short period, it can lead to discoloration, surface wear, increased roughness, and decreased surface hardness [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR15 CR16\" citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLithium disilicate glass-ceramics, are a widely used definitive restorative material in dentistry due to its high mechanical strength, biocompatibility, and translucency [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]. Its indication is extensive serving both for aesthetic rehabilitations, such as ceramic laminates in anterior teeth, and functional ones, such as in cases of total crowns, inlays, onlays, etc [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e]. In this type of material, a thin layer of glaze is applied to the surface to increase smoothness and shine, giving the material a natural appearance [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR22\" citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAuthors have reported that brushing dental ceramics with charcoal causes changes in surface gloss after 50.000 cycles of brushing simulation, which can decrease the longevity of the restoration and patient satisfaction post-rehabilitation [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e]. Studies on the effects of these dentifrices on lithium disilicate glass ceramics are scarce and limited, considering only optical properties at the expense of surface effects, such as roughness. Evaluating this type of effect is crucial since increased roughness can lead to reduced shine and greater biofilm accumulation [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTherefore, the aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of commercial benchmark dentifrices containing activated charcoal on the surface wear of glazed lithium disilicate ceramics. The hypotheses tested are: 1) Charcoal-based dentifrices increases surface roughness of ceramic; 2) The number of brushing-cycles increase the roughness according to type of dentifrice; 3) Brushing with different types of dentifrices influences surface gloss retention; and 4) The number of brushing-cycles influences surface gloss retention.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Material and Method","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1. Sample Preparation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeventy-two specimens of lithium disilicate from commercial benchmark were fabricated (CAD-CAM IPS e.max CAD Ivoclar, Schaan, Liechtenstein, HT - A1). The blocks were transversely sectioned (12.0 mm in width, 14.0 mm in length, and 1.2 mm in thickness) using a precision cutting machine (Isomet 1000, Buehler, Lake Bluff, IL, USA) with a diamond disc (EXTEC; Enfield, CT, USA) at low speed and constant water cooling. Sintering was performed following the manufacturer's recommendations, at 403\u0026deg;C for 24 minutes in a ceramic furnace (Austromat - DEKEMA, Dental-Keramik\u0026ouml;fen GmgH, Freilassing, Germany).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe specimens were polishing using silicon carbide sandpapers of progressive finer grit sizes #400, #600, #1200, and #2000 (Buehler, Lake Bluff, IL, USA) under constant water cooling and polished with felt discs and diamond pastes of 1 \u0026micro;m and 0.25 \u0026micro;m granulations (Arotec S/A Ind. e Com, Cotia, SP, Brazil) to obtain flat surfaces. Glazing was executed with IPS Ivocolor Glaze Paste FLUO (Ivoclar, Schaan, Liechtenstein) and IPS Ivocolor Mixing Liquid Allround (Ivocar, Schaan, Liechtenstein). Glaze sintering followed the manufacturer's instructions at 403\u0026deg;C for 24 minutes in a ceramic furnace (Austromat - DEKEMA, Dental-Keramik\u0026ouml;fen GmgH, Freilassing, Germany).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe specimens randomly divided into three groups (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;24): CV \u0026ndash; powdered activated charcoal dentifrice (Carvvo, Salvador, BA, Brazil); CPBW \u0026ndash; dentifrice containing activated charcoal (Curaprox Black is White, Curaden AG, Krien, Switzerland); and C12 \u0026ndash; conventional dentifrice without charcoal, control group (Colgate Total 12, Colgate-Palmolive Company, S\u0026atilde;o Paulo, SP, Brazil). Information on the dentifrices is shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComposition of dentifrices and manufacturer\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProduct/Group\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eManufacturer\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComposition*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCarvvo (CV)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCarvvo, Salvador, BA, Brazil.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eActivated charcoal, kaolin clay, and Orange essential oil.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCuraprox Black is White\u0026nbsp;(CPBW)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCuraden AG, Krien, Switzerland.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSodium monofluorophosphate (950 ppm fluoride), water, sorbitol, hydrated silica, glycerin, charcoal powder, aroma, decyl glucoside, cocamidopropyl betaine, tocopherol, xanthan gum, maltodextrin, mica, hydroxyapatite (nano), potassium acesulfame, titanium dioxide, microcrystalline cellulose, sodium chloride, potassium chloride, citrus limon peel oil, sodium hydroxide, zea mays starch, amiloglucosidase, glucose oxidase, urtica dioica leaf extract, potassium thiocyanate, cetearyl alcohol, lecithin hydrogenated, mentil lactate, menthyl diisopropyl propionamide, ethyl methane carboxamide, stearic acid, mannitol, sodium bisulito, tin oxide, lactoperoxidase, and limonen.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eColgate Total 12\u0026nbsp;(C12)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eColgate-Palmolive Company, S\u0026atilde;o Paulo, SP, Brazil.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSodium monofluorophosphate (1450 ppm fluoride), calcium carbonate, water, glycerin, sodium lauryl sulfate, cellulose gum, aroma, tetrasodium pyrophosphate, sodium bicarbonate, benzyl alcohol, sodium saccharin, and sodium hydroxide.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"3\"\u003e*Manufacturer data\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2. Brushing Protocol\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSpecimens were fixed using hot-melted adhesive to a brushing machine (Brushing Machine X; Biopdi, S\u0026atilde;o Carlos, SP, Brazil) with the polished and glazed surface exposed to the toothbrush (Oral B Professional Care 5000 Oral B; Schwalbacham Taunus, Germany). The CPBW and CV slurry were prepared with deionized water in a 1:3 dilution (by weight). The activated charcoal powder followed the same ratio, where 1 g of powder was dissolved in 3 mL of deionized water. The specimens were brushed under a vertical load of 200 gF for 5.000, 10.000, and 20.000 brushing cycles in the presence of 4 mL of slurry [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3. Roughness Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSurface roughness was mensured in baseline and after each brushing-cycle using a surface rugosimeter (Surfcorder SE 1700, Kosaka Corp., Tokyo, Japan). Each specimen was analyzed in three different orientations, with a distance of 2.5 mm, scanning speed of 0.05 mm/second and a cutoff of 0.25 mm. The surface roughness (Ra), expressed in micrometers (\u0026micro;m), was obtained by means of the 3 measurements [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4. Surface gloss Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSurface gloss analysis was also mensured in baseline and after each brushing-cycle. A gloss meter (GZM 1120 Glossmeter, Zehntner GmbH Testing Instrument, Sissach, Switzerland) was used for this purpose. The instrument was calibrated and positioned parallel to the specimen. The angle of 60\u0026deg; was used as the parameter. The results were obtained in Gloss Units (GU). Three gloss measurements were performed. The mean of these measurements was considered for statistical analysis [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.5. Three-dimensional Profilometric Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThree specimens from each group were analyzed in baseline and after each brushing cycle using a 3D profilometer (Proscan 2100, Scantron, Venture Way, Tauton, UK) set to go through 200 x 0.01 mm steps on the x-axis, and 10 x 0.1 mm steps on the y-axis. A 2 mm (x-axis) by 1 mm (y-axis) area was scanned from the specimen's center. Three-dimensional images were generated using Proscan Application software version 2.0.17, Scantron Ltd. The profilometry images were employed for qualitative surface analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.6. Surface Characterization\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTwo specimens from each group were randomly selected at baseline and after each brushing cycle for surface characterization using a Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM). The specimens were sputter-coated with gold (SCD 050 Sputter Coater, Capovani Brothers Inc, New York, USA) and then examined under the SEM (JSM 5600LV, JEOL, Tokyo, Japan). The analyses were conducted at 1.000x magnification, with a voltage 15 kV, beam width of 25\u0026ndash;30 nm, and working distance 10\u0026ndash;15 nm.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.7. \u003cb\u003eAbrasive particles characterization\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 g of each dentifrice was diluted in 6 mL of deionized water and centrifuged at 1.000 rpm for 5 minutes (Excelsa Centrifuge, model 206, FANEM, S\u0026atilde;o Paulo, Brazil). This procedure was repeated until obtaining a clear supernatant. The decanted abrasive particles were dried for 24 hours at 37\u0026ordm;C in an incubator (FANEM, S\u0026atilde;o Paulo, Brazil). The particles were placed on stubs and supetter-coated with gold (SCD 050 Sputter Coater, Capovani Brothers Inc, New York, USA) for SEM analysis (JSM 5600LV, JEOL, Tokyo, Japan). Characterization was performed at 2.000x magnification, with a voltage 15 kV, a beam width 25\u0026ndash;30 nm, and a working distance 10\u0026ndash;15 nm [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.8. Statistical Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe normal distribution was confirmed using the Shapiro-Wilk test, and the data were analyzed by 2-way repeated measures ANOVA followed by Tukey's post-hoc test (α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.05). The analyses were performed using ASSISTAT Version 7.7 software.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1. Roughness\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor roughness on the ceramic surface after brushing cycle with different dentifrices are shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e. The CV showed roughness values higher than C12 (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.002). No statistical difference was observed between CV and CPBW, (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0,179) and CPBW and C12 (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.227). When brushing cycles was compared, no difference was observed between baseline, and 5.000, 10.000, and 20.000 cycles (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.15).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean of roughness-Ra and standard derivation (\u0026micro;m) for the dentifrices and brushing cycle.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"5\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBrushing cycle\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDentifr\u0026iacute;cio\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBaseline\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean per dentifrice\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCV\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0864 (0,02)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.1438 (0,17)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0875 (0,05)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.1951 (0,09)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCPBW\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0793 (0,01)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.1223 (0,11)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.1028 (0,12)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0910 (0,05)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAB\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eC12\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0744 (0,01)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0682 (0,008)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0762 (0,009)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0676 (0,008)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMean per cycle\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ea\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ea\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ea\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ea\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eValues followed by the different uppercase superscript in the column and lowercase subscript in the row are statistically different.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2. Surface gloss\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e presents the mean surface gloss values (GU). The mean values of GU on baseline were higher than 20.000 cycles (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.003) in relation to CV and CPBW. However, no difference was found between baseline, 5.000 and 10.000 cycles for CV (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.967). It is important to note that the same was observed among baseline and 5.000 cycles (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.438), and 5.000 and 10.000 cycles for CPBW (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.000). C12 group showed similar results GU in the different brushing cycles. The GU of C12 after 5.000, 10.000 and 20.000 cycles were higher than CV and CPBW (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMeans of surface gloss and standard deviation (GU) for the dentifrices and brushing-cycle.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBrushing cycle\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBaseline\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCV\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e80.77 (12.2) Aa\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e79.58 (12.2) Ab\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e74.59 (12.2) Ab\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e67.41 (11.2) Bb\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCPBW\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e86.39 (8.6) Aa\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e82.1 (9.3) ABb\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e78.16 (8.7) Bb\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e69.62 (9.6) Cb\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eC12\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e87.94 (6.6) Ba\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e96.53 (1.7) Aa\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e97.52 (1.2) Aa\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e95.97 (1.4) Aa\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eValues followed by the different lowercase subscript within the same column and uppercase superscript in the same row are statistically different (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3. Three-dimensional Profilometric\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e3D profilometry images are shown in the Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. It is notable that for the charcoal dentifrices (lines 1 and 2), there is a greater discrepancy in peaks and valleys on the surface, indicated by a higher presence of red points. Conversely, for the conventional dentifrice (line 3), this discrepancy is considerably reduced, as predominantly green color indicates greater surface stability in this condition.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.4. Surface Characterization\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe images of the ceramic surfaces obtained by SEM are showed in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e. Consistent with the three-dimensional profilometry images, the specimens subjected to activated charcoal-containing dentifrices (lines 1 and 2) exhibit greater depth and a higher quantity of scratches compared to the conventional dentifrice (line 3), especially after 20.000 brushing cycles. The black arrow indicates scratches on the surface of the specimens. The black triangle indicates points to areas of glaze delamination. The index finger indicates points to a likely charcoal particle adsorbed on the surface. Overall, there appears to be no effect from brushing with the conventional dentifrice, regardless of the evaluation period.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.5. \u003cb\u003eAbrasive particles characterization\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSEM images of the abrasive particles are shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e. CV (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e.a) exhibits particles of varying sizes, irregular shapes, and sharp edges. CPBW (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e.b) displays irregularly shaped particles with varying sizes and sharp angles, where smaller spherical particles form clusters and cover larger particles. C12 (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e.c) showcases particles with more regular and spherical shapes, with little variation in size.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eCharcoal-based dentifrices have been shown an increase surface roughness of ceramic. However, brushing cycle did not contribute to surface wear. Therefore, the first hypothesis was accepted, while the second hypothesis was rejected.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccording to the ISO 11609 dentifrices are classified based on their abrasiveness using Relative Dentin Abrasion (RDA). RDA up to 70 are considered low abrasiveness, from 71 to 100 as medium abrasiveness, from 101 to 150 as high abrasiveness, and above 151 as very high abrasiveness. The dentifrices manufacturer reports the RDA: CV\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;90, CPBW\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;50 and C12\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;68 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]. Nevertheless, according to findings, CV demonstrated higher abrasive than C12, while CPBW exhibited intermediate abrasiveness. These outcomes may be influenced by the commercial form of the dentifrice (paste or powder), in addition to the geometry and particle size of the abrasive componentes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDentifrices in paste form contain components that decrease the concentration of abrasive particles. On the other hand, powder-based dentifrices essentially consist of abrasive particles (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Regarding these studies, it can be speculated that a higher concentration of abrasive particles would lead to a more abrasive effect [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e]. The size, shape, and hardness of the particles influence surface wear [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]. Irregular shapes, sharp angles, sizes larger than 20 \u0026micro;m, and hardness exceeding that of the abraded surface result in greater wear [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSEM analysis revealed a higher quantity of irregularly shaped particles of varying sizes with sharp angles in the CV group (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e.a), leading to upper average roughness values, classifying it as the most abrasive dentifrice. The C12 particles are spherical with a regular surface and rounded edges (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e.c), resulting in lower average roughness values and exhibiting lesser abrasive characteristics. CPBW (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e.b) displays both irregular particles with sharp angles (similar to CV) and spherical particles with regular surfaces and rounded edges (similar to C12), explaining its classification with intermediate abrasiveness.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough the analysis of variance of roughness suggests that brushing cycle is not a significant factor, the three-dimensional profilometry shows progressive surface wear (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). This method is more sensitive than the contact profilometer\u003csup\u003e9\u003c/sup\u003e. This observation is also evident in the SEM images (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe GU data indicate that both type of dentifrice and brushing cycle influence the gloss retention on glazed lithium disilicate glass ceramic. Thus, the third hypothesis and the fourth hypothesis are accepted.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe C12 shows a higher gloss after 5.000 brushing cycles, indicating that the toothpaste can polish without adversely affecting the material surface. This increase in gloss is not perceptible to human eye, due to alterations beyond 70 GU are not distinguishable [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e]. The CV caused a reduction in gloss below 70 GU, making a clinically relevant alteration. These findings also align with the surface characterization (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e) and three-dimensional profilometry analysis (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e), where evident surface alteration was observed. CPBW, despite being classified with intermediate abrasiveness in the study, exhibited a fall in gloss below 70 GU. This might be associated with areas of glaze delamination caused by the dentifrice during the brushing protocol. Additionally, the activated charcoal has ions adsorption properties [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e], which may cause an adherence to the surface and interfere in the gloss analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe present study has some limitations. First, only one type and one commercial benchmark of ceramic and glaze were evaluated. Additionally, replicating the oral environment in an in vitro setting is challenging; although deionized water was used to prepare the slurry, the presence of saliva in the oral cavity could potentially influence the outcomes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e]. Further studies are warranted to assess the long-term retention of the glaze and the bacterial adhesion to the surface in order to validate the findings of this investigation.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eCharcoal-based dentifrice has a detrimental effect on the surface of glazed lithium disilicate ceramics, potentially compromising their optical properties, especially gloss and surface roughness. In contrast, conventional dentifrice did not cause significant damage to the material, suggesting it as a more suitable option for patients.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConflict of Interest:\u003c/strong\u003e none.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding:\u003c/strong\u003e This work was supported by Coordination of Higher Level Personnel Improvement (CAPES), code 001.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical Approval:\u003c/strong\u003e Not Applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInformed Consent:\u003c/strong\u003e Not Applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eV.M.S: Writing \u0026ndash; review \u0026amp; editing, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Conceptualization. A.C.L.C: Writing \u0026ndash; review\u0026amp;editing, Methodology, Investigation, Data curation. AGE: Conceptualization, Project administration.LCS: Writing \u0026ndash;review \u0026amp; editing, Supervision. RCBA: . Writing \u0026ndash;review \u0026amp; editing, Validation, Supervision, Project administration, Formal analysis.RMPR: Validation, Supervision, Conceptualization, Supervision.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Coordination of Higher Level Personnel Improvement (CAPES) by the financial support (Code 001).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrooks JK, Bashirelahi N, Reynolds MA (2017) Charcoal and charcoal-based dentifrices: a literature review. J Am Dent Assoc 148(9):661\u0026ndash;670. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.adaj.2017.05.001\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.adaj.2017.05.001\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGonzalez-Cabezas C, Hara AT, Hefferren J, Lippert F (2013) Abrasivity testing of dentifrices\u0026mdash;challenges and current state of the art. Monogr Oral Sci 23:100\u0026ndash;107. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1159/000350476\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1159/000350476\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJefferies SR (2007) Abrasive finishing and polishing in restorative dentistry: a state-of-the-art review. Dent Clin North Am 51(2):379\u0026ndash;397. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2006.12.002\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.cden.2006.12.002\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHamza B, Tanner M, Attin T, Wegehaupt FJ (2020) Dentin abrasivity and cleaning efficacy of novel/alternative toothpastes. Oral Health Prev Dent 18(1):713\u0026ndash;718. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3290/j.ohpd.a45323\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3290/j.ohpd.a45323\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eViana IEL, Weiss GS, Sakae LO, Niemeyer SH, Borges AB, Scaramucci T (2021) Activated charcoal toothpastes do not increase erosive tooth wear. J Dent 109:103677. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103677\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103677\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJanardhana C, Nageswara Rao G, Sathish S et al (2007) Study on defluoridation of drinking water using zirconium ion impregnated activated charcoals. Indian J Chem Technol 14:350\u0026ndash;355\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGanss C, Marten J, Hara A et al (2016) Toothpastes and enamel erosion/abrasion\u0026mdash;impact of active ingredients and the particulate fraction. J Dent 54:62\u0026ndash;67. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2016.09.004\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jdent.2016.09.004\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSingh RP, Sharma S, Logani A, Shah N, Singh S (2016) Comparative evaluation of tooth substance loss and its correlation with the abrasivity and chemical composition of different dentifrices. Indian J Dent Res 27(6):630\u0026ndash;636. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4103/0970-9290.199589\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4103/0970-9290.199589\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eO\u0026rsquo;Mahony C, Hill M, Brunet M, Duane R, Mathewson A (2003) Characterization of micromechanical structures using white-light interferometry. Meas Sci Technol 14(10):1807\u0026ndash;1814. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1088/0957-0233/14/10/308\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1088/0957-0233/14/10/308\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGreenwall LH, Greenwall-Cohen J, Wilson NHF (2019) Charcoal-containing dentifrices. Br Dent J 226(9):697\u0026ndash;700. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-019-0235-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/s41415-019-0235-1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePalandi SDS, Kury M, Picolo MZD, Coelho CSS, Cavalli V (2020) Effects of activated charcoal powder combined with toothpastes on enamel color change and surface properties. J Esthet Restor Dent 32(8):783\u0026ndash;790. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12589\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/jerd.12589\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKoc Vural U, Bagdatli Z, Yilmaz AE, Altundasar E, Gurgan S (2021) Effects of charcoal-based whitening toothpastes on human enamel in terms of color, surface roughness, and microhardness: an in vitro study. Clin Oral Investig 25(10):5977\u0026ndash;5985. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-03883-7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s00784-021-03883-7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEm\u0026iacute;dio AG, Silva VF, Melo FR, Ribeiro EP et al (2022) In vitro assessment of activated charcoal-based dental products. J Esthet Restor Dent 34(1):8\u0026ndash;14. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12982\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/jerd.12982\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTakahashi R, Jin J, Nikaido T, Tagami J, Hickel R, Kunzelmann KH (2013) Surface characterization of current composites after toothbrush abrasion. Dent Mater J 32(1):75\u0026ndash;82. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2012-160\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4012/dmj.2012-160\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTorso VH, Fraga MAA, Lopes RM, Aranha ACC, Correr-Sobrinho L, Correr AB (2021) Charcoal-based dentifrices: effect on color stability and surface wear of resin composites. J Esthet Restor Dent 33(5):815\u0026ndash;823. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12714\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/jerd.12714\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFronza BM, Ayres A, Pacheco RR, Rueggeberg FA, Dias C, Giannini M (2017) Characterization of inorganic filler content, mechanical properties, and light transmission of bulk-fill resin composites. Oper Dent 42(4):445\u0026ndash;455. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2341/16-024-L\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2341/16-024-L\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBinhasan M, Solimanie AH, Almuammar KS et al (2022) The effect of dentifrice on micro-hardness, surface gloss, and micro-roughness of nano filled conventional and bulk-fill polymer composite\u0026mdash;a micro indentation and profilometric study. Mater (Basel) 15(12):4347. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/ma15124347\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/ma15124347\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChen Y, Yeung AWK, Pow EHN, Tsoi JKH (2021) Current status and research trends of lithium disilicate in dentistry: a bibliometric analysis. J Prosthet Dent 126(4):512\u0026ndash;522. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.08.012\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.08.012\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFouda AM, Atta O, Kassem AS, Desoky M, Bourauel C (2022) Wear behavior and abrasiveness of monolithic CAD/CAM ceramics after simulated mastication. Clin Oral Investig 26(11):6593\u0026ndash;6605. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04611-w\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s00784-022-04611-w\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLindner S, Frasheri I, Hickel R, Crispin A, Kessler A (2023) Retrospective clinical study on the performance and aesthetic outcome of pressed lithium disilicate restorations in posterior teeth up to 8.3 years. Clin Oral Investig 27(12):7383\u0026ndash;7393. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-023-05328-0\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s00784-023-05328-0\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDella Bona A, Kelly JR (2008) The clinical success of all-ceramic restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 139(Suppl):8S\u0026ndash;13S\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLu Y, de Oliveira Dal Piva AM, Tribst JPM, Feilzer AJ, Kleverlaan CJ (2023) Does glaze firing affect the strength of advanced lithium disilicate after simulated defects? Clin Oral Investig 27(11):6429\u0026ndash;6438. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-023-05246-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s00784-023-05246-1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLu Y, Dal Piva AMO, Nedeljkovic I, Tribst JPM, Feilzer AJ, Kleverlaan CJ (2023) Effect of glazing technique and firing on surface roughness and flexural strength of an advanced lithium disilicate. Clin Oral Investig 27(7):3917\u0026ndash;3926. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-023-05014-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s00784-023-05014-1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSulaiman TA, Camino RN, Cook R, Delgado AJ, Roulet JF, Clark WA (2020) Time-lasting ceramic stains and glaze: a toothbrush simulation study. J Esthet Restor Dent 32(6):581\u0026ndash;585. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12590\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/jerd.12590\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKreve S, Dos Reis AC (2022) Effect of surface properties of ceramic materials on bacterial adhesion: a systematic review. J Esthet Restor Dent 34(3):461\u0026ndash;472. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12799\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/jerd.12799\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003edos Santos PH, Pavan S, Consani S, Sobrinho LC, Sinhoreti MA, Filho JN (2007) In vitro evaluation of surface roughness of 4 resin composites after the toothbrushing process and methods to recover superficial smoothness. Quintessence Int 38(5):e247\u0026ndash;e253\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eConsani RLX, Folli BL, Nogueira MCF, Correr AB, Mesquita MF (2016) Effect of polymerization cycles on gloss, roughness, hardness and impact strength of acrylic resins. Braz Dent J 27(2):176\u0026ndash;180. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440201600733\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1590/0103-6440201600733\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"clinical-oral-investigations","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"cloi","sideBox":"Learn more about [Clinical Oral Investigations](http://link.springer.com/journal/784)","snPcode":"784","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/784/3","title":"Clinical Oral Investigations","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Dentifrices, Charcoal, Ceramics, Toothbrushing, Dental Materials","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6650032/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6650032/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eObjectives\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo evaluate the effects of commercially available charcoal-based dentifrices on the surface roughness and gloss retention of glazed lithium disilicate glass-ceramics subjected to simulated toothbrushing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMaterials and Methods\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeventy-two glazed lithium disilicate specimens (IPS e.max CAD, Ivoclar) were randomly assigned to three groups (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;24): Carvvo (CV), Curaprox Black is White (CPBW), and Colgate Total 12 (C12 \u0026ndash; control). Toothbrushing simulations were performed for 5.000, 10.000, and 20.000 cycles. Surface roughness (Ra) and gloss (GU) were measured at baseline and after each brushing interval. Three-dimensional profilometry and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) were used for qualitative surface characterization. Abrasive particles were analyzed using SEM.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eResults\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCharcoal-based dentifrices increased surface roughness and reduced gloss values of glazed ceramics, with CV showing the highest abrasiveness. CPBW demonstrated intermediate effects, while C12 preserved surface integrity and even enhanced gloss. Three-dimensional profilometry and SEM confirmed more pronounced surface wear in groups CV and CPBW. Abrasive particles from charcoal-based dentifrices were irregular, larger, and sharper compared to the spherical and uniform particles in C12.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eConclusions\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCharcoal-based dentifrices significantly compromise the surface quality of lithium disilicate glass-ceramics by increasing roughness and reducing gloss, which may affect esthetics and long-term performance. Conventional dentifrice had no deleterious effect on ceramic surfaces.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eClinical Relevance\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe routine use of charcoal-containing toothpastes by patients with ceramic restorations may accelerate surface wear and reduce optical properties, compromising the longevity and esthetic outcomes of restorative treatments.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Effect of charcoal-based dentifrices on the surface integrity and gloss of lithium disilicate glass-ceramics","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-05-29 10:46:15","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6650032/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-06-11T04:19:18+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-06-09T10:22:25+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-06-06T12:50:09+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"319129218167484300970284967360350679253","date":"2025-05-31T10:12:26+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"204788172205041225521887108782558696054","date":"2025-05-27T17:15:59+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-05-27T15:28:28+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-05-20T13:01:22+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-05-20T12:59:28+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Clinical Oral Investigations","date":"2025-05-12T23:56:22+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"clinical-oral-investigations","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"cloi","sideBox":"Learn more about [Clinical Oral Investigations](http://link.springer.com/journal/784)","snPcode":"784","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/784/3","title":"Clinical Oral Investigations","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"22cbcc48-1fea-4a12-8b90-ac641cd77b49","owner":[],"postedDate":"May 29th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-09-01T15:59:42+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-6650032","link":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-025-06494-z","journal":{"identity":"clinical-oral-investigations","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Clinical Oral Investigations"},"publishedOn":"2025-08-28 15:56:54","publishedOnDateReadable":"August 28th, 2025"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-05-29 10:46:15","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1007/s00784-025-06494-z","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-025-06494-z","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6650032","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6650032","identity":"rs-6650032","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}