## 3 Results  
There was a significant difference between the initial and one month of brushing regarding \(\Delta\)E values (\(p\) = 0.007). \(\Delta\)E values of SW, SIR + PP, and SW + PP were considered similar (Table 3), whereas SIR was higher than the other toothpaste groups after one month of brushing (\(p\) = 0.007) (Table 3). There was no significant difference between the initial and one week of brushing (\(p\) = 0.217) and the initial and two weeks of brushing (\(p\) = 0.367) (Table 3). Regardless of toothpastes, Charisma presented significantly the lowest color change than the other composite groups after the discoloration (\(p\) < 0.001) (Table 4). After two weeks of brushing, the \(\Delta\)E values of the G-aenial A'chord, Neo Spectra ST, and Ruby composite groups were similar (\(p\) < 0.001) (Table 4). ELS presented the highest color change after two weeks of brushing (\(p\) < 0.001) (Table 4). Regardless of the composite material, no significant difference was observed between the initial Ra values and those after discoloration (\(p\) = 0.719, \(p\) = 0.812, respectively) for all toothpastes. Ra values significantly increased after two weeks and one month for all toothpastes compared to one week of brushing (Table 5). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l} \hline  & \(\mathbf{T_{0}}\)–\(\mathbf{T_{1}}\) & \(\mathbf{T_{0}}\)–\(\mathbf{T_{2}}\) & \(\mathbf{T_{0}}\)–\(\mathbf{T_{3}}\) & \(\mathbf{T_{0}}\)–\(\mathbf{T_{4}}\) \\ \hline Charisma Smart & 3.75 \(\pm\) 1.54 \({}^{\text{A}}\) & 2.27 \(\pm\) 1.17 \({}^{\text{A}}\) & 1.98 \(\pm\) 1.06 \({}^{\text{A}}\) & 3.06 \(\pm\) 1.53 \({}^{\text{AB}}\) \\ \hline G-aenial A’chord & 6.49 \(\pm\) 3.34 \({}^{\text{B}}\) & 4.32 \(\pm\) 4.31 \({}^{\text{B}}\) & 3.46 \(\pm\) 1.47 \({}^{\text{B}}\) & 3.92 \(\pm\) 1.11 \({}^{\text{B}}\) \\ \hline ELS & 7.13 \(\pm\) 1.55 \({}^{\text{B}}\) & 5.09 \(\pm\) 2.37 \({}^{\text{B}}\) & 5.69 \(\pm\) 1.66 \({}^{\text{C}}\) & 3.45 \(\pm\) 1.12 \({}^{\text{B}}\) \\ \hline Neo Spectra ST & 6.50 \(\pm\) 1.63 \({}^{\text{B}}\) & 3.89 \(\pm\) 1.65 \({}^{\text{AB}}\) & 3.38 \(\pm\) 1.63 \({}^{\text{B}}\) & 3.01 \(\pm\) 1.48 \({}^{\text{AB}}\) \\ \hline Ruby & 6.04 \(\pm\) 1.78 \({}^{\text{B}}\) & 4.11 \(\pm\) 1.82 \({}^{\text{AB}}\) & 3.64 \(\pm\) 1.82 \({}^{\text{B}}\) & 2.45 \(\pm\) 0.75 \({}^{\text{A}}\) \\ \hline \(p\) & \textless{}0.001 & 0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Comparison of composites regarding \(\Delta\)E values. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l} \hline  & \(\mathbf{T_{0}}\)–\(\mathbf{T_{1}}\) & \(\mathbf{T_{0}}\)–\(\mathbf{T_{2}}\) & \(\mathbf{T_{0}}\)–\(\mathbf{T_{3}}\) & \(\mathbf{T_{0}}\)–\(\mathbf{T_{4}}\) \\ \hline SIR & 5.92 \(\pm\) 1.99 & 4.33 \(\pm\) 2.12 & 4.13 \(\pm\) 2.29 & 3.47 \(\pm\) 1.56 \({}^{\text{B}}\) \\ \hline SW & 5.99 \(\pm\) 3.49 & 4.37 \(\pm\) 3.92 & 3.47 \(\pm\) 1.84 & 2.82 \(\pm\) 1.24 \({}^{\text{A}}\) \\ \hline SIR + PP & 5.95 \(\pm\) 1.75 & 3.83 \(\pm\) 2.54 & 3.50 \(\pm\) 1.81 & 2.78 \(\pm\) 0.98 \({}^{\text{A}}\) \\ \hline SW + PP & 6.06 \(\pm\) 1.92 & 3.20 \(\pm\) 1.21 & 3.41 \(\pm\) 1.76 & 2.84 \(\pm\) 1.22 \({}^{\text{A}}\) \\ \hline \(p\) & 0.995 & 0.217 & 0.367 & 0.007 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Comparison of toothpastes regarding \(\Delta\)E values. For the initial Ra values, ELS was higher among other composite groups (\(p\) < 0.001). No significant difference was observed between Charisma and G'aenial A'chord composites (\(p\) < 0.001) or between Neo Spectra and Ruby composites (\(p\) < 0.001). After two weeks and one month of brushing, all materials presented significantly increased Ra values compared to the initial and one week of brushing (\(p\) < 0.001). All materials presented similar surface roughness after two weeks (\(p\) = 0.585) and one month of brushing (\(p\) = 0.606) (Table 6). Regardless of composite materials, there was no significant difference in SRI scores between the toothpastes for all time intervals (\(p\) > 0.05) (Table 7).