Objectives Lozenges are frequently recommended to stimulate saliva for patients suffering from dry mouth to improve the quality of their lives. This study aimed to investigate the effects of dry mouth lozenges with varying acidity levels on the color stability and surface morphology of resin-based restorative materials. Materials and methods Eighty specimens, comprising a composite (n = 40) and a compomer (n = 40), were prepared using a standardized mold. The baseline color (T0) of each specimen was measured using the CIE (L,a,b) color assessment system with Vita Easy Shade Compact. The specimens were then divided into eight groups: Group-1: Composite-ACT, Group-2: Composite-TheraBreath, Group-3: Composite-Biotene, Group-4: Composite-Xylimelts, Group-5: Compomer-ACT, Group-6: Compomer-TheraBreath, Group-7: Compomer-Biotene, and Group-8: Compomer-Xylimelts. Each lozenge was dissolved in 10 mL of distilled water, and the pH of the solutions was measured using a pH meter. Over a period of one week, the specimens were immersed in the respective lozenge solutions within Eppendorf tubes, and color measurements were repeated on the seventh day (T1). Subsequently, the color changes (ΔE) over time were statistically analyzed. Randomly selected specimens from each group were examined using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) after 7 days to evaluate surface morphology. For the statistical analysis, a significance level of p < 0.05 was applied. Results The pH levels of the dry mouth lozenges tested were as follows: ACT (8.53), TheraBreath (3.55), Biotene (5.34), and Xylimelts (8.14). After 7 days, the color change (ΔE) in the groups was recorded as: G1 (4.06 ± 2.29), G2 (2.63 ± 1.67), G3 (5.97 ± 4.32), G4 (4.34 ± 3.00), G5 (12.76 ± 2.73), G6 (15.53 ± 5.06), G7 (11.09 ± 4.70), and G8 (4.85 ± 1.77). The two-way ANOVA revealed a significant interaction between restorative material and lozenge type (p < 0.001). Compomer materials exhibited significantly greater color change than composite materials when exposed to ACT, TheraBreath, and Biotene lozenges (p < 0.05). However, no significant difference was observed between materials with Xylimelts lozenge (p > 0.05). Among compomers, Xylimelts caused significantly less discoloration compared to other lozenges, while composite materials showed no significant color changes across different lozenge types. Conclusion The choice of restorative material is critical for pediatric patients who use dry mouth lozenges. This study demonstrates that while composite resins maintained stable color regardless of the lozenge type, compomers were highly susceptible to discoloration when exposed to certain lozenges. Therefore, composite resin is a more reliable choice for esthetic restorations in patients using these specific lozenge products.

Effects of dry mouth lozenges on the surface morphology and color stability of restorative materials

期刊论文
出版模式：

开放获取
发表日期：

2026年1月14日

查看全文

Aslı Aşık,
Sibel Acar,
Dilşah Çoğulu

摘要

Objectives

Lozenges are frequently recommended to stimulate saliva for patients suffering from dry mouth to improve the quality of their lives. This study aimed to investigate the effects of dry mouth lozenges with varying acidity levels on the color stability and surface morphology of resin-based restorative materials.

Materials and methods

Eighty specimens, comprising a composite (n = 40) and a compomer (n = 40), were prepared using a standardized mold. The baseline color (T0) of each specimen was measured using the CIE (L*,a*,b*) color assessment system with Vita Easy Shade Compact. The specimens were then divided into eight groups: Group-1: Composite-ACT, Group-2: Composite-TheraBreath, Group-3: Composite-Biotene, Group-4: Composite-Xylimelts, Group-5: Compomer-ACT, Group-6: Compomer-TheraBreath, Group-7: Compomer-Biotene, and Group-8: Compomer-Xylimelts. Each lozenge was dissolved in 10 mL of distilled water, and the pH of the solutions was measured using a pH meter. Over a period of one week, the specimens were immersed in the respective lozenge solutions within Eppendorf tubes, and color measurements were repeated on the seventh day (T1). Subsequently, the color changes (ΔE*) over time were statistically analyzed. Randomly selected specimens from each group were examined using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) after 7 days to evaluate surface morphology. For the statistical analysis, a significance level of p < 0.05 was applied.

Results

The pH levels of the dry mouth lozenges tested were as follows: ACT (8.53), TheraBreath (3.55), Biotene (5.34), and Xylimelts (8.14). After 7 days, the color change (ΔE) in the groups was recorded as: G1 (4.06 ± 2.29), G2 (2.63 ± 1.67), G3 (5.97 ± 4.32), G4 (4.34 ± 3.00), G5 (12.76 ± 2.73), G6 (15.53 ± 5.06), G7 (11.09 ± 4.70), and G8 (4.85 ± 1.77). The two-way ANOVA revealed a significant interaction between restorative material and lozenge type (p < 0.001). Compomer materials exhibited significantly greater color change than composite materials when exposed to ACT, TheraBreath, and Biotene lozenges (p < 0.05). However, no significant difference was observed between materials with Xylimelts lozenge (p > 0.05). Among compomers, Xylimelts caused significantly less discoloration compared to other lozenges, while composite materials showed no significant color changes across different lozenge types.

Conclusion

The choice of restorative material is critical for pediatric patients who use dry mouth lozenges. This study demonstrates that while composite resins maintained stable color regardless of the lozenge type, compomers were highly susceptible to discoloration when exposed to certain lozenges. Therefore, composite resin is a more reliable choice for esthetic restorations in patients using these specific lozenge products.