# Effect of Bleaching on the Surface Roughness of Resin Composites Evaluated by Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM)

## TL;DR

This study compares how two bleaching methods affect the surface roughness of different dental composite resins using atomic force microscopy.

## Contribution

The novel contribution is evaluating the impact of light-activated and laser-activated bleaching on nanohybrid and microhybrid composites using AFM.

## Key findings

- Both bleaching methods increased surface roughness compared to controls.
- Nanohybrid composites showed lower roughness than microhybrid composites after bleaching.
- Laser bleaching had a greater impact on surface roughness than zoom bleaching.

## Abstract

Background/Objectives: Composite resins are widely used restorative materials, but their surface properties may be altered by bleaching procedures. This study aimed to compare the effects of two bleaching techniques—light-activated (zoom) and diode laser-activated—on the surface roughness of nanohybrid and microhybrid composites using Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM) for topographic evaluation. Methods: A total of 60 composite resin disks were fabricated, with 30 nanohybrid and 30 microhybrid samples. Each type was divided into three subgroups: control, zoom bleaching, and laser bleaching (n = 10 per group). Zoom bleaching employed 40% hydrogen peroxide gel activated by the Philips Zoom system, while laser bleaching used a 940 nm diode laser (QuickLase, Kent, UK) in combination with QuickLase bleaching gel containing approximately 35–40% hydrogen peroxide. Surface roughness parameters (Sa) were measured using AFM, and statistical analysis was performed. Results: Both bleaching protocols increased surface roughness compared to controls. Microhybrid composites showed higher roughness after zoom (103.12 ± 19.25 nm) and laser bleaching (106.16 ± 25.21 nm), while nanohybrid composites had lower values after zoom (57.77 ± 13.88 nm) and laser bleaching (78.13 ± 23.29 nm). Significant differences were found between composite types post-bleaching (p < 0.001 for zoom; p = 0.019 for laser). However, differences between bleaching methods within the same composite type were not significant (p > 0.05). Conclusions: Both zoom and laser bleaching negatively affect composite surfaces, with laser bleaching showing a greater impact. Nanohybrid composites demonstrated superior resistance to surface alteration, suggesting better clinical durability. These findings are relevant for clinicians when planning restorative treatments in patients likely to undergo bleaching.