Influence of the Surface roughness on translucency and surface color of the dental composite resins

Kyu-Jeong Cho; Su-Jung Park; Hyun-Gu Cho; Dong-Jun Kim; Yun-Chan Hwang; Won-Mann Oh; In-Nam Hwang

doi:10.5395/JKACD.2006.31.4.312

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Restor Dent Endod > Volume 31(4); 2006 > Article

Original Article Influence of the Surface roughness on translucency and surface color of the dental composite resins: Kyu-Jeong Cho, Su-Jung Park, Hyun-Gu Cho, Dong-Jun Kim, Yun-Chan Hwang, Won-Mann Oh, In-Nam Hwang; Journal of Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry 2006;31(4):312-322.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2006.31.4.312
Published online: July 31, 2006

Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, DSRI, Chonnam National University, Korea.

Corresponding Author: In-Nam Hwang. Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Chonnam National University, 5 Hak-dong, Dong-gu, Gwangju, Korea, 501-757. Tel. 82-62-220-4443, Fax. 82-62-225-8387, hinso@jnu.ac.kr

• Received: April 17, 2006 • Revised: May 29, 2005 • Accepted: June 28, 2006

20 Views
0 Download

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
REFERENCES

Abstract

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.
Keywords: Surface roughness; Surface color; Opacity; Translucency; Composite resin

REFERENCES

1. Lui JL, Low T. The surface finish of the new microfill restorative materials. J Oral Rehabil. 1982;9: 67-82.Article PubMed
2. van Noort R, Davis LG. The surface finish of composite resin restorative materials. Br Dent J. 1984;157: 360-364.PubMed
3. Toledano M, De La Torre FJ, Osorio R. Evaluation of two polishing methods for resin composites. Am J Dent. 1994;7: 328-330.
4. Weitman RT, Eames WB. Plaque accumulation on composite surfaces after various finishing procedures. J Am Dent Assoc. 1975;91: 101-106.Article PubMed
5. Strassler HE. Polishing composite resins. J Esthet Dent. 1992;4: 177-179.PubMed
6. 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.PubMed
7. Chan KC, Fuller JL, Hormati AA. The ability of foods to stain two composite resins. J Prosthet Dent. 1980;43: 542-545.Article PubMed
8. Moon AJ, Kwon HC. A study on the surface roughness and reflectivity after polishing of the microfill, hybrid composite resins. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 1994;19: 513-533.
9. Lee JY, Shin DH. Surface roughness of universal composites after polishing procedures. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 2003;28: 369-377.Article
10. Park SH, Noh BD, Ahn HJ, Kim HK. Celluloid strip-finished versus polished composite surface: ifference in surface discoloration on microhybrid composite. J Oral Rehabil. 2004;31: 62-66.PubMed
11. Wilson F, Heath JR, Watts DC. Finishing composite restorative materials. J Oral Rehabil. 1990;17: 79-87.Article PubMed
12. Hondrum SO, Fernandez R Jr. Contouring, finishing, and polishing class 5 restorative materials. Oper Dent. 1997;22: 30-36.PubMed
13. Chung KH. Effects of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface texture of resin composites. Dent Mater. 1994;10: 325-330.Article PubMed
14. Ozgünaltay G, Yazici AR, Gorucu J. Effect of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface roughness of new tooth-coloured restoratives. J Oral Rehabil. 2003;30: 218-224.PubMed
15. Roeder LB, Tate WH, Powers JM. Effect of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface roughness of packable composites. Oper Dent. 2000;25: 534-543.PubMed
16. Yap AU, Lye KW, Sau CW. Surface characteristics of tooth-colored restoratives polished utilizing different polishing systems. Oper Dent. 1997;22: 260-265.PubMed
17. Setcos JC, Tarim B, Suzuki S. Surface finish produced on resin composites by new polishing systems. Quintessence Int. 1999;30: 169-173.PubMed
18. Bouvier D, Duprez JP, Lissac M. Comparative eveluation of polishing systems on the surface of three aesthetic materials. J Oral Rehabil. 1997;24: 888-894.PubMed
19. Yap AUJ, Sau CW, Lye KW. Effect of finishing/polishing time on the surface characteristics of tooth-coloured restoratives. J Oral Rehabil. 1998;25: 456-461.PubMed
20. Nagem Filho H, D'Azevedo MTFS, Nagem HD, Marsola FP. Surface roughness of composite resins after finishing and polishing. Braz Dent J. 2003;14: 37-41.Article PubMed
21. Reis AF, Giannini M, Lovadino JR, Ambrosano GM. Effect of various finishing systems on the surface roughness and staining susceptibility of packable resins. Dent Mater. 2003;19: 12-18.PubMed
22. Hachiya Y, Iwaku M, Hosoda H, Fusayama T. Relation of finish to discoloration of composite resins. J Prosthet Dent. 1984;52: 811-814.PubMed
23. Okazaki M, Douglas WH. Comparison of surface layer properties of composite resins by ESCA, SEM, and X-ray diffractometry. Biomaterials. 1984;5: 284-288.Article PubMed
24. Carlén A, Nikdel K, Wennerberg A, Holmberg K, Olsson J. Surface characteristics and in vitro biofilm formation on glass ionomer and composite resin. Biomaterials. 2001;22: 481-487.Article PubMed
25. Dodge WW, Dale RA, Cooley RL, Duke ES. Comparison of wet and dry finishing of resin composites with aluminum oxide discs. Dent Mater. 1991;7: 18-20.Article PubMed
26. Fruits TJ, Miranda FJ, Coury TL. Effect of equivalent abrasive grit sizes utilizing differing polishing motions on selected restorative materials. Quintessence Int. 1996;27: 279-285.PubMed
27. Tate WH, Powers JM. Surface roughness of composites and hybrid ionomers. Oper Dent. 1996;21: 53-58.PubMed
28. St Germain HA Jr, Meiers JC. Surface roughness of light-activated glass-ionomer cement restorative materials after finishing. Oper Dent. 1996;21: 103-109.PubMed
29. Pedrini D, Candido MSM, Rodrigues AL Jr. Analysis of surface roughness of glass-ionomer cements and compomer. J Oral Rehabil. 2003;30: 714-719.Article PubMed PDF
30. Wilder AD Jr, Swift EJ Jr, May KN Jr, Thompson JY, McDougal RA. Effect of finishing technique on the microleakage and surface texture of resin-modified glass ionomer restorative materials. J Dent. 2000;28: 367-373.PubMed
31. Yap AU, Wong ML, Lim ACY. The effect of polishing systems on microleakage of tooth-coloured restoratives. Part 2: composite and polyacid-modified composite resinscomposite and polyacid-modified composite resins. J Oral Rehabil. 2000;27: 205-210.PubMed
32. Bertrand MF, Leforestier E, Muller M, Pegurier LL, Bolla M. Effect of surface penetrating sealant on surface texture and microhardness of composite resins. J Biomed Mater Res. 2000;53: 658-663.Article PubMed
33. Ferracane JL, Condon JR, Nitchem JC. Evaluation of subsurface defects created during the finishing of composites. J Dent Res. 1992;71: 1628-1632.Article PubMed PDF
34. Cho LR, Yi YJ, Heo SJ. Effect of tooth brushing and thermal cycling on a surface change of ceromers finished with different methods. J Oral Rehabil. 2002;29: 816-822.PubMed
35. O'Brien WJ, Johnston WM, Fanian F, Lambert S. The surface roughness and gloss of composites. J Dent Res. 1984;63: 685-688.Article PubMed PDF
36. Campbell PM, Johnston WM, O'Brien WJ. Light scattering and gloss of an experimental quartz-filled composite. J Dent Res. 1986;65: 892-894.Article PubMed PDF
37. Albers HF. Tooth-colored restoratives. 1996;8th ed. Santa Rosa, CA: Alto books; 10. 1-10. 22.
38. Grajower R, Revah A, Sorin S. Reflectance spectra of natural and acrylic resin teeth. J Prosthet Dent. 1976;36: 570-579.Article PubMed
39. Seghi RR, Hewlett ER, Kim J. Visual and instrumental colorimetric assessments of small color differences on translucent dental porcelain. J Dent Res. 1989;68: 1760-1764.PubMed
40. Report of Councils and Bureaus. New American Dental Association Specification No. 27 for direct filling resins. J Am Dent Assoc. 1977;94: 1191-1194.PubMed
41. Hwang IN, Lee KW. Translucency of light cured composite resins depends on thickness & its influence on color of restorations. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 1999;24: 604-613.

Figure 1

CIE L^*a^*b^* color system.

Figure 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 length.

Figure 3

L^* value of the measured specimens.

Figure 4

a^* value of the measured specimens.

Figure 5

b^* value of the measured specimens.

Figure 6

Surface roughness (Ra) of composite resins according to surface treatment.

Figure 7

Comparison of contrast ratio resulting from various roughness of sandpaper.

Figure 8

Comparison of Ra resulting from various roughness of sandpaper.

Figure 9

Correlation between contrast ratio and mean surface roughness (Ra).

Figure 10

Profile tracing of Charisma A3 according to surface treatment by sandpaper.

Table 1

Composite resins used in this study

Table 2

L^*a^*b^* values of the tested materials Mean (S.D.), n = 10

Values with same superscripts are not significantly different at p < 0.05 level among different surface treatment of same material.

Table 3

EColor difference (ΔE^*) between control group and surface treated groups

Table 4

Effect of surface treatment by Sof-lex disc on surface roughness (Ra, µm)

Values with same superscripts are not significantly different at p < 0.05 level among different surface treatment of same material.

Table 5

Contrast ratio and mean surface roughness (Ra) resulting from various roughness of sandpaper

Values with same superscripts are not significantly different at p < 0.05 level.

Tables & Figures

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

Influence of the Surface roughness on translucency and surface color of the dental composite resins

J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 2006;31(4):312-322. Published online July 31, 2006

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2006.31.4.312

XML Download

Figure

Related articles

Impact of combined at-home bleaching and whitening toothpaste use on the surface and color of a composite resin

Influence of the Surface roughness on translucency and surface color of the dental composite resins

Figure 1 CIE L*a*b* color system.

Figure 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 length.

Figure 3 L* value of the measured specimens.

Figure 4 a* value of the measured specimens.

Figure 5 b* value of the measured specimens.

Figure 6 Surface roughness (Ra) of composite resins according to surface treatment.

Figure 7 Comparison of contrast ratio resulting from various roughness of sandpaper.

Figure 8 Comparison of Ra resulting from various roughness of sandpaper.

Figure 9 Correlation between contrast ratio and mean surface roughness (Ra).

Figure 10 Profile tracing of Charisma A3 according to surface treatment by sandpaper.

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

Figure 8

Figure 9

Figure 10

Influence of the Surface roughness on translucency and surface color of the dental composite resins

Table 1

Composite resins used in this study

Table 2

L^*a^*b^* values of the tested materials Mean (S.D.), n = 10

Values with same superscripts are not significantly different at p < 0.05 level among different surface treatment of same material.

Table 3

EColor difference (ΔE^*) between control group and surface treated groups

Table 4

Effect of surface treatment by Sof-lex disc on surface roughness (Ra, µm)

Values with same superscripts are not significantly different at p < 0.05 level among different surface treatment of same material.

Table 5

Contrast ratio and mean surface roughness (Ra) resulting from various roughness of sandpaper

Values with same superscripts are not significantly different at p < 0.05 level.

Table 1 Composite resins used in this study

Table 2 L*a*b* values of the tested materials Mean (S.D.), n = 10

Values with same superscripts are not significantly different at p < 0.05 level among different surface treatment of same material.

Table 3 EColor difference (ΔE*) between control group and surface treated groups

Table 4 Effect of surface treatment by Sof-lex disc on surface roughness (Ra, µm)

Values with same superscripts are not significantly different at p < 0.05 level among different surface treatment of same material.

Table 5 Contrast ratio and mean surface roughness (Ra) resulting from various roughness of sandpaper

Values with same superscripts are not significantly different at p < 0.05 level.