The evaluation of surface roughness and polishing time between polishing systems

Ye-Mi Kim; Su-Jung Shin; Min-Ju Song; Jeong-Won Park

doi:10.5395/JKACD.2011.36.2.119

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Restor Dent Endod > Volume 36(2); 2011 > Article

Basic Research The evaluation of surface roughness and polishing time between polishing systems: Ye-Mi Kim, DDS, MS¹, Su-Jung Shin, DDS, MS², Min-Ju Song, DDS, MS², Jeong-Won Park, DDS, PhD²; Journal of Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry 2011;36(2):119-124.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2011.36.2.119
Published online: March 31, 2011

¹Department of Dentistry, Ewha Woman's University Mokdong Hospital, Seoul, Korea.

²Department of Conservative Dentistry, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Dentistry, Seoul, Korea.

Correspondence to Jeong-Won Park, DDS, PhD. Associate Professor, Department of Conservative Dentistry, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Dentistry, 146-92 Dogok-dong Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Korea 135-720. TEL, +82-2-2019-1350; FAX, +82-2-3463-4052; pjw@yuhs.ac

• Received: January 19, 2011 • Revised: February 22, 2011 • Accepted: February 23, 2011

18 Views
0 Download

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
REFERENCES

Abstract

Objectives
The purpose of this experiment was to evaluate four different polishing systems of their polishability and polishing time.
Materials and Methods
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.
Results
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.
Conclusions
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.
Keywords: Dental composite; One-step polishing; Polishing; Surface roughness

REFERENCES

1. Yap AU, Yap SH, Teo CK, Ng JJ. Finishing/polishing of composite and compomer restoratives: effectiveness of one-step systems. Oper Dent. 2004;29: 275-279.PubMed
2. Aykent F, Yondem I, Ozyesil AG, Gunal SK, Avunduk MC, Ozkan S. Effect of different finishing techniques for restorative materials on surface roughness and bacterial adhesion. J Prosthet Dent. 2010;103: 221-227.Article PubMed
3. 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.Article PubMed
4. Choi MS, Lee YK, Lim BS, Rhee SH, Yang HC. Changes in surface characteristics of dental resin composites after polishing. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2005;16: 347-353.PubMed
5. Neme AL, Frazier KB, Roeder LB, Debner TL. Effect of prophylactic polishing protocols on the surface roughness of esthetic restorative materials. Oper Dent. 2002;27: 50-58.PubMed
6. Stoddard JW, Johnson GH. An evaluation of polishing agents for composite resins. J Prosthet Dent. 1991;65: 491-495.Article PubMed
7. Chung KH. Effects of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface texture of resin composites. Dent Mater. 1994;10: 325-330.Article PubMed
8. Korkmaz Y, Ozel E, Attar N, Aksoy G. The influence of one-step polishing systems on the surface roughness and microhardness of nanocomposites. Oper Dent. 2008;33: 44-50.PubMed
9. Chen MH. Update on dental nanocomposites. J Dent Res. 2010;89: 549-560.Article PubMed PDF
10. Türkün LS, Türkün M. The effect of one-step polishing system on the surface roughness of three esthetic resin composite materials. Oper Dent. 2004;29: 203-211.PubMed
11. Lee JY, Shin DH. Surface roughness of universal composites after polishing procedures. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 2003;28: 369-377.Article
12. van Noort R, Davis LG. The surface finish of composite resin restorative materials. Br Dent J. 1984;157: 360-364.PubMed
13. Da Costa J, Ferracane J, Paravina RD, Mazur RF, Roeder L. The effect of different polishing systems on surface roughness and gloss of various resin composites. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2007;19: 214-224 discussion 225-216.Article PubMed
14. Quirynen M, Bollen CM, Papaioannou W, Van Eldere J, van Steenberghe D. The influence of titanium abutment surface roughness on plaque accumulation and gingivitis: short-term observations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996;11: 169-178.PubMed
15. Jones CS, Billington RW, Pearson GJ. The in vivo perception of roughness of restorations. Br Dent J. 2004;196: 42-45 discussion 31.Article PubMed PDF
16. Fruits TJ, Miranda FJ, Coury TL. Effects of equivalent abrasive grit sizes utilizing differing polishing motions on selected restorative materials. Quintessence Int. 1996;27: 279-285.PubMed
17. St-Georges AJ, Bolla M, Fortin D, Muller-Bolla M, Thompson JY, Stamatiades PJ. Surface finish produced on three resin composites by new polishing systems. Oper Dent. 2005;30: 593-597.PubMed
18. Almeida GS, Poskus LT, Guimaräes JG, da Silva EM. The effect of mouthrinses on salivary sorption, solubility and surface degradation of a nanofilled and a hybrid resin composite. Oper Dent. 2010;35: 105-111.Article PubMed PDF
19. Heintze SD, Forjanic M, Ohmiti K, Rousson V. Surface deterioration of dental materials after simulated tooth-brushing in relation to brushing time and load. Dent Mater. 2010;26: 306-319.Article PubMed
20. Khalichi P, Singh J, Cvitkovitch DG, Santerre JP. The influence of triethylene glycol derived from dental composite resins on the regulation of Streptococcus mutans gene expression. Biomaterials. 2009;30: 452-459.PubMed
21. Senawongse P, Pongprueksa P. Surface roughness of nanofill and nanohybrid resin composites after polishing and brushing. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2007;19: 265-273 discussion 274-275.Article PubMed

Figure 1

Surface roughness (Ra, µm) of composite resins with 4 different polishing systems.

Figure 2

Polishing time (seconds) of 4 different polishing systems.

Figure 3

SEM image of the polished composite surface with each polishing system (left ×100, right ×10,000). SEM, scanning electron microscopr.

Table 1

Polishing systems used in this experiment

Table 2

Surface roughness and polishing time for each polishing system (n = 13)

Different superscript in the same column means statistically significant difference (p < 0.05).

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

The evaluation of surface roughness and polishing time between polishing systems

J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 2011;36(2):119-124. Published online March 31, 2011

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2011.36.2.119

XML Download

Figure

The evaluation of surface roughness and polishing time between polishing systems

Figure 1 Surface roughness (Ra, µm) of composite resins with 4 different polishing systems.

Figure 2 Polishing time (seconds) of 4 different polishing systems.

Figure 3 SEM image of the polished composite surface with each polishing system (left ×100, right ×10,000). SEM, scanning electron microscopr.

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

The evaluation of surface roughness and polishing time between polishing systems

Table 1

Polishing systems used in this experiment

Table 2

Surface roughness and polishing time for each polishing system (n = 13)

Different superscript in the same column means statistically significant difference (p < 0.05).

Table 1 Polishing systems used in this experiment

Table 2 Surface roughness and polishing time for each polishing system (n = 13)

Different superscript in the same column means statistically significant difference (p < 0.05).