Warning: mkdir(): Permission denied in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 81

Warning: fopen(upload/ip_log/ip_log_2024-12.txt): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 83

Warning: fwrite() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 84
Surface roughness of universal composites after polishing procedures


Your browser does not support the NLM PubReader view.

Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.

Surface roughness of universal composites after polishing procedures

Article information

Restor Dent Endod. 2003;28(5):369-377
Publication date (electronic) : 2003 September 30
doi : https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2003.28.5.369
Jae-Yong Lee, Dong-Hoon Shin
Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Dankook University, Korea.
Corresponding author (donyshin@dankook.ac.kr)

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of two polishing methods and chemical conditioning on the surface of hybrid composites.

Ninety cylindrical specimens (diameter: 8 mm, depth: 2 mm) were made with three hybrid composites - Filtek Z250, Tetric Ceram, DenFil. Specimens for each composite were randomly divided into three treatment subgroups - ① Mylar strip (no treatment), ② Sof-Lex XT system, ③ PoGo system. Average surface roughness(Ra) was taken using a surface profilometer at the time of setting and after immersion into 0.02N lactic acid for 1 week and 1 month. Representative specimens were examined by scanning electron microscopy. The data were analyzed using ANOVA and Scheffe's tests at 0.05% significance level.

The results were as follows:

  1. Mylar strip resulted in smoother surface than PoGo and Sof-Lex system(p<0.001). Sof-Lex system gave the worst results.

  2. Tetric Ceram was smoother than DenFil and Z250 when cured under only mylar strip. However, it was significantly rougher than other materials when polished with PoGo system.

  3. All materials showed rough surface after storage in 0.02N lactic acid, except groups polished with a PoGo system.

The PoGo system gave a superior polish than Sof-Lex system for the three composites. However, the correlation to clinical practice may be limited, since there are several processes, such as abrasive, fatigue, and corrosive mechanisms. Thus, further studies are needed for polishing technique under in vivo conditions.

Keywords: Surface roughness; Universal hybrid composite; Mylar strip; Sof-Lex system; PoGo system; 0.02N lactic acid

References

1. Marigo L, Rizzi M, La Torre G, Rumi G. 3-D surface profile analysis: different finishing methods for resin composites. Oper Dent 2001. 26562–568.
2. Strassler HE, Baum G. Current concepts in polishing composite resins. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 1993. 53 Suppl 1. 12–17.
3. Yap AU, Lye KW, Sau CW. Surface characteristics of tooth-colored restoration polished utilizing different polishing system. Oper Dent 1997. 22(6)260–265.
4. Toledano M, De La Torre FJ, Osorio R. Evaluation of two polishing methods for resin composites. Am J Dent 1994. 7328–330.
5. van Noort R, Davis LG. The surface finish of composite resin restorative materials. Br Dent J 1984. 157(10)360–364.
6. Weitman RT, Eames WB. Plaque accumulation on composite surfaces after various finishing procedures. Oral Health 1975. 65(12)29–33.
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(4)258–269.
8. Joniot SB, Gregoire GL, Auther AM, Roques YM. Three-dimensional optical profilometry analysis of surface states obtained after finishing sequences for three composite resins. Oper Dent 2000. 25(4)311–315.
9. Bouvier D, Duprez JP, Lissac M. Comparative evaluation of polishing systems on the surface of three aesthetic materials. J Oral Rehabil 1997. 24(12)888–894.
10. Roeder LB, Tate WH, Powers JM. Effect of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface roughness of packable composites. Oper Dent 2000. 25(6)534–543.
11. Kaplan BA, Goldstein GR, Vijayaraghavan TV, Nelson IK. The effect of three polishing systems on the surface roughness of four hybrid composites: a profilometric and scanning electron microscopy study. J Prosthet Dent 1996. 76(1)34–38.
12. Turssi CP, Saad JR, Duarte SL Jr, Rodrigues AL. Composite surfaces after finishing and polishing techniques. Am J Dent 2000. 13(3)136–138.
13. Lutz F, Setcos JC, Phillips RW. New finishing instruments for composite resins. J Am Dent Assoc 1983. 107(4)575–580.
14. Stoddard JW, Johnson GH. An evaluation of polishing agents for composite resins. J Prosthet Dent 1991. 65(4)491–495.
15. Chung KH. Effects of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface texture of resin composites. Dent Mater 1994. 10(5)325–330.
16. van Dijken JW, Ruyter IE. Surface characteristics of posterior composites after polishing and toothbrushing. Acta Odontol Scand 1987. 45(5)337–346.
17. Jung M. Finishing and polishing of a hybrid composite and a heat-pressed glass ceramic. Oper Dent 2002. 27(2)175–183.
18. Fruits TJ, Miranda FJ, Coury TL. Effects of equivalent abrasive grit sizes utilizing differing polishing motions on selected restorative materials. Quintessence Int 1996. 27(4)279–285.
19. Albers HF. Tooth-colored restoratives 8th 1996. Alto Books;
20. Yap AU, Lye KW, Sau CW. Effect of finishing/polishing time on surface characteristics of tooth-coloured restoratives. J Oral Rehabil 1998. 25(6)456–461.
21. Wu W, McKinney JE. Influence of chemicals on wear of dental composites. J Dent Res 1982. 61(10)1180–1183.
22. Roulet JF, Walti C. Influence of oral fluid on composite resin and glass ionomer cement. J Prosthet Dent 1984. 52(2)182–189.
23. Setcos JC, Tarim B, Suzuki S. Surface finish produced on resin composites by new systems. Quintessence Int 1999. 30(3)169–173.
24. Yap AU, Low JS, Ong LF. Effect of food-simulating liquids on surface characteristics of composite and polyacid-modified composite restoratives. Oper Dent 2000. 25(3)170–176.
25. Jefferies SR, Barkmeier WW, Gwinnett AJ. Three composite finishing systems: a multisite in vitro evaluation. J Esthet Dent 1992. 4(6)181–185.
26. Berastegui E, Canalda C, Brau E, Miquel C. Surface roughness of finished composite resins. J Prosthet Dent 1992. 68(5)742–749.
27. Strassler HE, Bauman G. Current concepts in polishing composite resins. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 1993. 53 Suppl 1. 12–17.
28. Ferracane JL, Condon JR, Mitchem JC. Evaluation of subsurface defects created during the finishing of composites. J Dent Res 1992. 71(9)1628–1632.
29. Kao EC. Influence of food-simulating solvents on resin composites and glass-ionomer restorative cement. Dent Mater 1989. 5(3)201–208.
30. Soderholm KJ. Leaking of fillers in dental composites. J Dent Res 1983. 62(2)126–130.

Article information Continued

Copyright © 2003 Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry
(open-access) :

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Fig. 1

Fig. 1

Tracing length and sites of specimens.

Fig. 2

Fig. 2

The overall roughness of the surface (Ra parameter) is defined as the arithmetical average value of all absolute distances of the roughness profile from the centerline within the measuring lenth.

Fig. 3

Fig. 3

Surface roughness(Ra, µm)

Fig. 4

Fig. 4

Filtek Z250 (no Tx., before immersion) (×150)

Fig. 5

Fig. 5

Filtek Z250 (no Tx., 1 month) (×150)

Fig. 6

Fig. 6

Filtek Z250 (Sof-Lex system, before immersion) (×150)

Fig. 7

Fig. 7

Filtek Z250 (Sof-Lex system, 1 month) (×150)

Fig. 8

Fig. 8

Filtek Z250 (PoGo system, before immersion) (×150)

Fig. 9

Fig. 9

Filtek Z250 (PoGo system, 1 month) (×150)

Table 1

Composition and manufacturers of the composites evaluated

Table 1

*Bis-GMA : bisphenol diglycidyl methacrylate

§UDMA : urethan dimethacrylate

†Bis-EMA : bisphenol A polyetheylene glycol diether dimethacrylate

‡TEGDMA : triethylene glycol dimethacrylate

Table 2

Polishing kits tested

Table 2

Table 3

Surface roughness (Ra) [Mean (S.D.)] (µm)

Table 3

Table 4

Statistical significance when the polishing methods and materials, immersion times and materials combination were analyzed (2-way ANOVA).

Table 4