Surface roughness of universal composites after polishing procedures

Jae-Yong Lee; Dong-Hoon Shin

doi:10.5395/JKACD.2003.28.5.369

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Restor Dent Endod > Volume 28(5); 2003 > Article

Original Article Surface roughness of universal composites after polishing procedures: Jae-Yong Lee, Dong-Hoon Shin; Journal of Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry 2003;28(5):369-377.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2003.28.5.369
Published online: September 30, 2003

Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Dankook University, Korea.

Corresponding author (donyshin@dankook.ac.kr)

16 Views
0 Download

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
REFERENCES

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;26: 562-568.PubMed
2. Strassler HE, Baum G. Current concepts in polishing composite resins. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent. 1993;5: 3 Suppl 1. 12-17.PubMed
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.PubMed
4. Toledano M, De La Torre FJ, Osorio R. Evaluation of two polishing methods for resin composites. Am J Dent. 1994;7: 328-330.
5. van Noort R, Davis LG. The surface finish of composite resin restorative materials. Br Dent J. 1984;157(10):360-364.PubMed
6. Weitman RT, Eames WB. Plaque accumulation on composite surfaces after various finishing procedures. Oral Health. 1975;65(12):29-33.Article
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.Article PubMed
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.PubMed
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.PubMed
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.PubMed
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.Article PubMed
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.PubMed
13. Lutz F, Setcos JC, Phillips RW. New finishing instruments for composite resins. J Am Dent Assoc. 1983;107(4):575-580.PubMed
14. Stoddard JW, Johnson GH. An evaluation of polishing agents for composite resins. J Prosthet Dent. 1991;65(4):491-495.Article PubMed
15. Chung KH. Effects of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface texture of resin composites. Dent Mater. 1994;10(5):325-330.Article PubMed
16. van Dijken JW, Ruyter IE. Surface characteristics of posterior composites after polishing and toothbrushing. Acta Odontol Scand. 1987;45(5):337-346.Article PubMed
17. Jung M. Finishing and polishing of a hybrid composite and a heat-pressed glass ceramic. Oper Dent. 2002;27(2):175-183.PubMed
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.PubMed
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.PubMed
21. Wu W, McKinney JE. Influence of chemicals on wear of dental composites. J Dent Res. 1982;61(10):1180-1183.Article PubMed PDF
22. Roulet JF, Walti C. Influence of oral fluid on composite resin and glass ionomer cement. J Prosthet Dent. 1984;52(2):182-189.PubMed
23. Setcos JC, Tarim B, Suzuki S. Surface finish produced on resin composites by new systems. Quintessence Int. 1999;30(3):169-173.PubMed
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.PubMed
25. Jefferies SR, Barkmeier WW, Gwinnett AJ. Three composite finishing systems: a multisite in vitro evaluation. J Esthet Dent. 1992;4(6):181-185.Article PubMed
26. Berastegui E, Canalda C, Brau E, Miquel C. Surface roughness of finished composite resins. J Prosthet Dent. 1992;68(5):742-749.PubMed
27. Strassler HE, Bauman G. Current concepts in polishing composite resins. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent. 1993;5: 3 Suppl 1. 12-17.PubMed
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.Article PubMed PDF
29. Kao EC. Influence of food-simulating solvents on resin composites and glass-ionomer restorative cement. Dent Mater. 1989;5(3):201-208.Article PubMed
30. Soderholm KJ. Leaking of fillers in dental composites. J Dent Res. 1983;62(2):126-130.PubMed

Fig. 1

Tracing length and sites of specimens.

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

Surface roughness(Ra, µm)

Fig. 4

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

Fig. 5

Filtek Z250 (no Tx., 1 month) (×150)

Fig. 6

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

Fig. 7

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

Fig. 8

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

Fig. 9

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

Table 1

Composition and manufacturers of the composites evaluated

^*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 3

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

Table 4

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

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

Surface roughness of universal composites after polishing procedures

J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 2003;28(5):369-377. Published online September 30, 2003

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2003.28.5.369

XML Download

Figure

Surface roughness of universal composites after polishing procedures

Fig. 1 Tracing length and sites of specimens.

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 Surface roughness(Ra, µm)

Fig. 4 Filtek Z250 (no Tx., before immersion) (×150)

Fig. 5 Filtek Z250 (no Tx., 1 month) (×150)

Fig. 6 Filtek Z250 (Sof-Lex system, before immersion) (×150)

Fig. 7 Filtek Z250 (Sof-Lex system, 1 month) (×150)

Fig. 8 Filtek Z250 (PoGo system, before immersion) (×150)

Fig. 9 Filtek Z250 (PoGo system, 1 month) (×150)

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

Fig. 5

Fig. 6

Fig. 7

Fig. 8

Fig. 9

Surface roughness of universal composites after polishing procedures

Table 1

Composition and manufacturers of the composites evaluated

^*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 3

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

Table 4

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

Table 1 Composition and manufacturers of the composites evaluated

^*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 3 Surface roughness (Ra) [Mean (S.D.)] (µm)

Table 4 Statistical significance when the polishing methods and materials, immersion times and materials combination were analyzed (2-way ANOVA).