The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of different modeling agents on the surface microhardness (Vickers hardness number; VHN), roughness (Ra), and color change (ΔE) of a nano-hybrid composite with or without exposure to discoloration by coffee.
Sixty-four cylinder-shaped nano-hybrid composite specimens were prepared using a Teflon mold. The specimens' surfaces were prepared according to the following groups: group 1, no modeling agent; group 2, Modeling Liquid; group 3, a universal adhesive (G-Premio Bond); and group 4, the first step of a 2-step self-adhesive system (OptiBond XTR). Specimens were randomly allocated into 2 groups (
Storage time did not influence the VHN of the nano-hybrid composite in any group (
Different types of modeling agents could affect the surface properties and discoloration of nano-hybrid composites.
The aim of this
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 (
For the hardness and roughness of nanocomposite resin, the QWB sequence was significantly more effective than QB (
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.
The purpose of this experiment was to evaluate four different polishing systems of their polishability and polishing time.
4 mm diameter and 2 mm thickness Teflon mold was made. Z-250 (3M ESPE) hybrid composite resin was slightly overfilled and pressed with slide glass and cured with Optilux 501 for 40 sec each side. Then the surface roughness (glass pressed: control group) was measured with profilometer. One surface of the specimen was roughened by #320 grit sand paper and polished with one of the following polishing systems; Sof-Lex (3M ESPE), Jiffy (Ultradent), Enhance (Dentsply/Caulk), or Pogo (Dentsply/Caulk). The surface roughness and the total polishing time were measured. The results were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Duncan's multiple range test.
The surface roughness was lowest in Pogo, and highest in Sof-Lex. Polishing times were shortest with Pogo, and followed by the Sof-Lex, Enhance and Jiffy.
One-step polishing system (Pogo) is very effective to get the smooth surface in a short time, therefore it can be recommended for final polishing system of the restoration.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of a new resin monomer, filler size and polishing technique on the surface roughness of composite resin restorations using confocal laser scanning microscopy. By adding new methoxylated Bis-GMA (Bis-M-GMA, 2,2-bis[4-(2-methoxy-3-methacryloyloxy propoxy) phenyl] propane) having low viscosity, the content of TEGDMA might be decreased. Three experimental composite resins were made: EX1 (Bis-M-GMA/TEGDMA = 95/5 wt%, 40 mm nanofillers); EX2 (Bis-M-GMA/TEGDMA = 95/5 wt%, 20 mm nanofillers); EX3 (Bis-GMA/TEGDMA = 70/30 wt%, 40 mm nanofillers). Filtek Z250 was used as a reference.
Nine specimens (6 mm in diameter and 2 mm in thickness) for each experimental composite resin and Filtek Z250 were fabricated in a teflon mold and assigned to three groups. In Mylar strip group, specimens were left undisturbed. In Sof-lex group, specimens were ground with #1000 SiC paper and polished with Sof-lex discs. In DiaPolisher group, specimens were ground with #1000 SiC paper and polished with DiaPolisher polishing points. The Ra (Average roughness), Rq (Root mean square roughness), Rv (Valley roughness), Rp (Peak roughness), Rc (2D roughness) and Sc (3D roughness) values were determined using confocal laser scanning microscopy. The data were statistically analyzed by Two-way ANOVA and Tukey multiple comparisons test (p = 0.05).
The type of composite resin and polishing technique significantly affected the surface roughness of the composite resin restorations (p < 0.001). EX3 showed the smoothest surface compared to the other composite resins (p < 0.05). Mylar strip resulted in smoother surface than other polishing techniques (p < 0.05).
Bis-M-GMA, a new resin monomer having low viscosity, might reduce the amount of diluent, but showed adverse effect on the surface roughness of composite resin restorations.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the difference in the surface roughness after polishing and to evaluate the difference in color stability after immersion in a dye solution among four types of composite resin materials. Four light-polymerized composite resins (Shade A2) with different sized filler content (a nanofilled, a hybrid, a microfilled, a flowble) were used. Average surface roughness (Ra) was measured with a surface roughness tester (Surftest Formtracer) before and after polishing with aluminum oxide abrasive discs (Super-Snap). Color of specimens before and after staining with 2% methylene blue solution were measured using spectrophotometer (CM-3700d) with SCI geometries. The results of Ra and ΔE were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), a Scheffe multiple comparison test and Student t-test (p = 0.05). After polishing, Ra values were decreased regardless of type of composite resins. In surface roughness after polishing and color stability after staining, nanofilled composite resin was not different with other composite resins except flowable resins.
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.
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.
The objectives of this study were to evaluate the effect of surface roughness on the surface color and translucency of the composite resins.
Two composite resins (Esthet-X, Dentsply, Milford, USA and Charisma, Kulzer, Domagen, Germany) were used to investigate the surface color. Charisma was used to investigate the translucency. 40 disc samples (diameter: 8 mm, thickness: 5 mm) were made by each product to measure the surface color. Polymerized each sample's one side was treated by Sof-Lex finishing and polishing system (Group C, M, F, SF). 40 disc samples (diameter: 6 mm, thickness: 1 mm) were prepared to measure the opacity. 1 mm samples were ground one side with #600, #1000, #1500 and #2000 sandpapers. CIE L*a*b* values of each 5 mm thickness samples, and XYZ values of 1 mm thickness samples on the white and black background were measured with spectrophotometer (Spectrolino, GretagMacbeth, Regensdorf, Switzerland).
Mean surface roughness (Ra) of all samples before and after surface treatment was measured using the Surface Roughness Tester SJ-301 (Mytutoyo, Tokyo, Japan).
Regardless of type and shade of the composite resin, L* values measured in group C were higher than others (p < 0.05), and L* value decreased as the Ra value decreased except B3 shade of Esthet-X. But there were no significant difference in a* values among groups. In control group and SF, highest b* values were measured (p < 0.05), except B1 shade of Esthet-X.
Contrast ratio decreased as the Ra value decreased (p < 0.05).
With the above results, difference of surface roughness has influence on surface color and translucency of dental composite resins.
The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of surface sealing materials on microleakage and surface roughness in Class V composite restorations.
Twenty five standardized Class V cavity preparations were made on the facial surface of human premolars and were randomly assigned to 5 groups. The teeth were restored with Z-250 after applying Single Bond. Following 7 days storage in distilled water at 37℃, the restorations were sealed as following systems : No sealing ; Single Bond Adhesive ; Biscover ; Fortify ; Optiguard. Then, toothbrush abrasion test was conducted using a wear testing machine.
Surface roughness was measured by means of profilometer before and after toothbrushing and the results were statistically analysed by using a paired t-test and ANOVA. The bonded interfaces and the changes of surface roughness were examined by SEM.
For microleakage test, specimens were stained in a 2% methylene blue solution, then longitudinally sectioned and analyzed for leakage at occlusal and cervical interfaces using stereomicroscope. The results were statistically analysed by using a Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U test.
Surface roughness was increasing in all groups after toothbrushing, but no statistically significant differences. In SEM observation, surface sealant was partially retained and partially detached in bonded interfaces. Especially, microgap was identified in cervical margins. In microleakage test, there was better seal in the enamel region and a significant difference between groups at occlusal margin. Control group and Single Bond group had significantly better marginal seal at enamel margin than cervical margin.
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:
Mylar strip resulted in smoother surface than PoGo and Sof-Lex system(p<0.001). Sof-Lex system gave the worst results. 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. 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.