Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Restor Dent Endod : Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics

OPEN ACCESS

Search

Page Path
HOME > Search
3 "Finishing"
Filter
Filter
Article category
Keywords
Publication year
Authors
Research Article
Finishing and polishing effects of multiblade burs on the surface texture of 5 resin composites: microhardness and roughness testing
Elodie Ehrmann, Etienne Medioni, Nathalie Brulat-Bouchard
Restor Dent Endod 2019;44(1):e1.   Published online November 26, 2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2019.44.e1
AbstractAbstract PDFPubReaderePub
Objectives

The aim of this in vitro study was to test the effect of 2 finishing–polishing sequences (QB, combining a 12/15-fluted finishing bur and an EVO-Light polisher; QWB, adding a 30-fluted polishing bur after the 12/15-fluted finishing bur used in the QB sequence) on 5 nanotech-based resin composites (Filtek Z500, Ceram X Mono, Ceram X Duo, Tetric Evoceram, and Tetric Evoceram Bulk Fill) by comparing their final surface roughness and hardness values to those of a Mylar strip control group (MS).

Materials and Methods

Twelve specimens of each nanocomposite were prepared in Teflon moulds. The surface of each resin composite was finished with QB (5 samples), QWB (5 samples), or MS (2 samples), and then evaluated (60 samples). Roughness was analysed with an optical profilometer, microhardness was tested with a Vickers indenter, and the surfaces were examined by optical and scanning electron microscopy. Data were analysed using the Kruskal-Wallis test (p < 0.05) followed by the Dunn test.

Results

For the hardness and roughness of nanocomposite resin, the QWB sequence was significantly more effective than QB (p < 0.05). The Filtek Z500 showed significantly harder surfaces regardless of the finishing–polishing sequence (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

QWB yielded the best values of surface roughness and hardness. The hardness and roughness of the 5 nanocomposites presented less significant differences when QWB was used.

  • 28 View
  • 0 Download
Close layer
Original Articles
Surface roughness of composite resin according to finishing methods
Jeong-Bum Min, Kong-Chul Cho, Young-Gon Cho
J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 2007;32(2):138-150.   Published online March 31, 2007
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2007.32.2.138
AbstractAbstract PDFPubReaderePub

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the difference of surface roughness of composite resin according to composite resin type, polishing methods, and use of resin sealant.

Two hundred rectangular specimens, sized 8 × 3 × 2 mm, were made of Micro-new (Bisco, Inc., Schaumburg, IL, U.S.A) and Filtek Supreme (3M ESPE Dental Products, St. Paul, MN, U.S.A.), and divided into two groups; Micronew-M group, Filtek Supreme-S group. Specimens for each composite group were subdivided into five groups by finishing and polishing instruments used; M1 & S1 (polyester strip), M2 & S2 (Sof-Lex disc), M3 & S3 (Enhance disc and polishing paste), M4 & S4 (Astropol), and M5 & S5 (finishing bur). Polished groups were added letter B after the application of resin surface sealant (Biscover), eg, M1B and S1B.

After specimens were stored with distilled water for 24 hr, average surface roughness (Ra) was taken using a surface roughness tester. Representative specimens of each group were examined by FE-SEM (S-4700: Hitachi High Technologies Co., Tokyo, Japan). The data were analysed using paired t-test, ANOVA and Duncan's tests at the 0.05 probability level. The results of this study were as follows;

The lowest Ra was achieved in all groups using polyester strip and the highest Ra was achieved in M5, S5 and M5B groups using finishing bur. On FE-SEM, M1 and S1 groups provided the smoothest surfaces, M5 and S5 groups were presented the roughest surfaces and voids by debonding of filler on the polished specimens.

There was no significant difference in Ra between Micronew and Filtek Supreme before the application of resin sealant, but Micronew was smoother than Filek Supreme after the application of resin sealant.

There was significant corelation between Ra of type of composite resin and polishing methods before the application of resin sealant (p = 0.000), but no significant interaction between them after the application of resin sealant. On FE-SEM, most of composite resin surfaces were smooth after the application of resin sealant on the polished specimens.

Compared with before and after the application of resin sealant in group treated in the same composite and polishing methods, Ra of M4B and M5B was statistically lower than that of M4 and M5, and S5B was lower than that of S5, respectively (p < 0.05).

In conclusion, surface roughness by polishing instruments was different according to type of composite resin. Overall, polyester strip produced the smoothest surface, but finishing bur produced the roughest surface. Application of resin sealant provided the smooth surfaces in specimens polished with Enhance, Astropol and finishing bur, but not provided them in specimens polished with Sof-Lex disc.

  • 19 View
  • 0 Download
Close layer
EVALUATION ON THE ABRASION RESISTANCE OF A SURFACE SEALANT
Soo-Mee Kim, Sae-Hee Han, Young-Gon Cho
J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 2007;32(3):180-190.   Published online January 14, 2007
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2007.32.3.180
AbstractAbstract PDFPubReaderePub
Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the abrasion resistance of surface penetrating sealant which was applied on a composite resin restoration and to provide proper time to reapply sealant on composite resin surface.

Two hundred rectangular specimens, sized 8 × 3 × 2 mm, were made of Micronew (Bisco, Inc., Schaumburg, IL, U.S.A) and divided into two groups; F group (n = 10) was finished with coarse and medium grit of Sof-Lex discs and BisCoverwas applied B group (n = 190) after finishing with discs. B group was again subdivided into nineteen subgroups. From B-1 group to B-18 group were subjected to toothbrush abrasion test using a distilled water-dentifrice slurry and toothbrush heads. B-IM group was not subjected to toothbrush abrasion test.

Average surface roughness (Ra) of each group was calculated using a surface roughness tester (Surfcorder MSE-1700: Kosaka Laboratory Ltd., Tokyo, Japan). A representative specimen of each group was examined by FE-SEM (S-4700: Hitachi High Technologies Co., Tokyo, Japan). The data were analysed using cluster analysis, paired t-test, and repeated measure ANOVA. The results of this study were as follows;

Ra of F group was 0.898 ± 0.145 μm and B-IM group was 0.289 ± 0.142 μm. Ra became higher from B-1 group (0.299 ± 0.48 μm) to B-18 group (0.642 ± 0.313 μm).

Final cluster center of Ra was 0.361 μm in cluster 1 (B-IM ∼ B-7), 0.511 μm in cluster 2 (B-8 ∼ B-14) and 0.624 μm in cluster 3 (B-15 ∼ B-18). There were significant difference among Ra of three clusters.

Ra of B-IM group was decreased 210.72% than Ra of F group. Ra of B-8 group and B-15 group was increased 35.49% and 51.35% respectively than Ra of B-IM group.

On FE-SEM, B-IM group showed the smoothest resin surface. B-8 group and B-15 group showed vertically shallow scratches, and wide and irregular vertical scratches on composite resin surface respectively.

Within a limitation of this study, finished resin surface will be again smooth and glazy if BisCover would be reapplied within 8 to 14 months after applying to resin surface.

  • 26 View
  • 0 Download
Close layer

Restor Dent Endod : Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics
Close layer
TOP