The effect of one-step and multi-step polishing systems on the surface roughness and microhardness of novel resin composites

Ugur Erdemir; Hande Sar Sancakli; Esra Yildiz

doi:10.1055/s-0039-1698951

European Journal of Dentistry, Inhaltsverzeichnis

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2012; 06(02): 198-205
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1698951

Original Article

Dental Investigation Society

The effect of one-step and multi-step polishing systems on the surface roughness and microhardness of novel resin composites

Ugur Erdemir

¹Department of Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul University

,

Hande Sar Sancakli

¹Department of Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul University

,

Esra Yildiz

¹Department of Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul University

› Institutsangaben

Abstract

als PDF herunterladen

ABSTRACT

Objectives: The objective of this in vitro study was to evaluate the surface roughness and microhardness of three novel resin composites containing nanoparticles after polishing with one-step and conventional multi-step polishing systems.

Methods: A total of 126 specimens (10 X 2 mm) were prepared in a metal mold using three nanocomposites (Filtek Supreme XT, Ceram-X, and Grandio), 21 specimens of each resin composite for both tests (n=63 for each test). Following light curing, seven specimens from each group received no polishing treatment and served as controls for both tests. The specimens were randomly polished using PoGo and Sof-Lex systems for 30 seconds after being wet-ground with 1200-grit silicon carbide paper. The mean surface roughness of each polished specimen was determined with a profilometer. The microhardness was determined using a Vickers hardness measuring instrument with a 200-g load and 15 seconds dwell time. The data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test and the post hoc Dunn's multiple comparison tests at a significance level of .05.

Results: Among all materials, the smoothest surfaces were obtained under a matrix strip (control) (P<.05). There were no statistically significant differences among polishing systems in the resin composites for surface roughness (P>.05). The lowest hardness values for the three resin composites were obtained with a matrix strip, and there was a statistically significant difference compared with other polishing systems (P<.05) whereas no statistically significant differences were observed between the polishing systems (P<.05).

Conclusion: The current one-step polishing system appears to be as effective as multi-step systems and may be preferable for polishing resin composite restorations. (Eur J Dent 2012;6:198-205)

Key words

Polishing systems - surface roughness - microhardness - nanocomposites

PDF (441 kb)

Referenzen

REFERENCES
1 Yap AU, Yap SH, Teo CK, Ng JJ. Finishing/polishing of composite and compomer restoratives: Effectiveness of onestep systems. Oper Dent 2004;29:275-279.
2 Mitra SB, Wu D, Holmes BN. An application of nanotechnology in advanced dental materials. J Am Dent Assoc 2003;134:1382-1390.
3 Beun S, Glorieux T, Devaux J, Vreven J, Leloup G. Characterization of nanofilled compared to universal and microfilled composites. Dent Mater 2007;23:51-59.
4 Cavalcante LM, Masouras K, Watts DC, Pimenta LA, Silikas N. Effect of nanofillers’ size on surface properties after toothbrush abrasion. Am J Dent 2009;22:60-64.
5 Ergucu Z, Turkun LS. Surface roughness of novel resin composites polished with one-step systems. Oper Dent 2007;32:185-192.
6 Kakaboura A, Fragouli M, Rahiotis C, Silikas N. Evaluation of surface characteristics of dental composites using profilometry, scanning electron, atomic force microscopy and gloss-meter. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2007;18:155-163.
7 Bollen CM, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature. Dent Mater 1997;13:258-269.
8 Ono M, Nikaido T, Ikeda M, Imai S, Hanada N, Tagami J, Matin K. Surface properties of resin composite materials relative to biofilm formation. Dent Mater J 2007;26:613-622.
9 Jefferies SR. Abrasive finishing and polishing in restorative dentistry: a state-of-the-art review. Dent Clin North Am 2007;51:379-397.
10 Jones CS, Billington RW, Pearson GJ. The in vivo perception of roughness of restorations. Br Dent J 2004;196:42-45.
11 Gordan VV, Patel SB, Barrett AA, Shen C. Effect of surface finishing and storage media on bi-axial flexure strength and microhardness of resin-based composite. Oper Dent 2003;28:560-567.
12 O’Brien WJ. Physical properties in dental materials and their selection. Illinois, Quintessence Publishing Co., 4th ed., 2008, p. 18.
13 Ferracane JL, Mitchem JC, Condon JR, Todd R. Wear and marginal breakdown of composites with various degrees of cure. J Dent Res 1997;76:1508-1516.
14 Attar N. The effect of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface roughness of composite resin materials. J Contemp Dent Pract 2007;8:27-35.
15 Senawongse P, Pongprueksa P. Surface roughness of nanofill and nanohybrid resin composites after polishing and brushing. J Esthet Restor Dent 2007;19:265-275.
16 Baseren M. Surface roughness of nanofill and nanohybrid composite resin and ormocer-based tooth-colored restorative materials after several finishing and polishing procedures. J Biomater Appl 2004;19:121-134.
17 Turkun LS, Turkun M. The effect of one-step polishing system on the surface roughness of three esthetic resin composite materials. Oper Dent 2004;29:203-211.
18 Barbosa SH, Zanata RL, Navarro MF, Nunes OB. Effect of different finishing and polishing techniques on the surface roughness of microfilled, hybrid and packable composite resins. Braz Dent J 2005;16:39-44.
19 Lu H, Roeder LB, Lei L, Powers JM. Effect of surface roughness on stain resistance of dental resin composites. J Esthet Restor Dent 2005;17:102-109.
20 Korkmaz Y, Ozel E, Attar N, Aksoy G. The influence of onestep polishing systems on the surface roughness and microhardness of nanocomposites. Oper Dent 2008;33:44-50.
21 Patel SB, Gordan VV, Barrett AA, Shen C. The effect of surface finishing and storage solutions on the color stability of resin-based composites. J Am Dent Assoc 2004;135:587-594.
22 Morgan M. Finishing and polishing of direct posterior resin restorations. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent 2004;16:211-217.
23 Ryba TM, Dunn WJ, Murchison DF. Surface roughness of various packable composites. Oper Dent 2002;27:243-247.
24 Marigo L, Rizzi M, La Torre G, Rumi G. 3-D surface profile analysis: Different finishing methods for resin composites. Oper Dent 2001;26:562-568.
25 Fruits TJ, Miranada FJ, Coury TL. Effects of equivalent abrasive grit sizes utilizing differing polishing motions on selected restorative materials. Quintessence Int 1996;27:279-285.
26 Tjan AH, Chan CA. The polishability of posterior composites. J Prosthet Dent 1989;61:138-146.
27 McLundie AC, Murray FD. Comparison of methods used in finishing composite resin-a scanning electron microscope study. J Prosthet Dent 1974;31:163-171.
28 Leinfelder KF, Wilder AD Jr, Teixeira LC. Wear rates of posterior composite resins. J Am Dent Assoc 1986;112:829-833.
29 Mair LH. Staining of in vivo subsurface degradation in dental composites with silver nitrate. J Dent Res 1991;70:215-220.
30 Asmussen E. Factors affecting the quantity of remaining double bonds in restorative resin polymers. Scan J Dent Res 1982;90:490-496.
31 Chung KH. The relationship between composition and properties of posterior resin composites. J Dent Res 1990;69:852-856.
32 Cekic-Nagas I, Egilmez F, Ergun G. The effect of irradiation distance on microhardness of resin composites cured with different light curing units. Eur J Dent 2010;4:440-446.