EFFECT OF PROPHYLACTIC PASTES ON RESTORATIVE MATERIALS’ SURFACE ROUGHNESS AND GLOSS

Year 2024, Volume: 48 Issue: 1, 3 - 12, 30.04.2024

Emel Karaman , Ayşe Rüya Yazıcı , Donald Antonson , Carlos A Muñoz Marc Campillo , Sibel Antonson

Abstract

Purpose: To test the effect of two different prophylactic pastes on the surface roughness and gloss of restorative materials.
Materials and Methods: Fifty specimens were prepared using IPS Empress Direct resin-composite and IPS Empress-CAD (Ivoclar/Vivadent) ceramic blocks. Baseline surface roughness and gloss measurements were performed on 10 specimens. The rest of the samples were randomly assigned to four groups: Proxyt Coarse, Proxyt Fine (Ivoclar/Vivadent), Nupro Coarse and Nupro Fine (Dentsply) (n=10). After polishing the specimens, roughness and gloss values were measured. Data were analyzed using One-Way ANOVA and pairwise multiple comparisons at the significance level of p<0.001. Post-hoc Tukey test was used to detect differences between the groups.
Results: While no differences in surface roughness, were observed between Nupro Coarse and Nupro Fine on both resin composite and ceramics, statistically significant differences were found between Proxyt Coarse and Proxyt Fine (p<0.001) In terms of gloss, no difference was observed between Nupro Fine and Coarse, while significant difference was detected between Proxyt Coarse and Fine. Decrease in surface gloss of the ceramic was statistically significant for all the paste groups, except Proxyt Fine (p<0.001).
Conclusion: The dental prophylaxis paste can affect the surface gloss and roughness for resin composite and ceramics. Pumice-based prophylactic pastes should be used with great caution. Silica based fine grit-size prophylactic pastes provide better and safer choice with minimum surface alterations on restorative materials.

Keywords

Dental Prophylaxis , CAD-CAM , Composite Resin , Gloss , Surface Roughness

References

• 1. Tonetti MS, Chapple IL, Jepsen S, Sanz M. Primary and secondary prevention of periodontal and peri-implant diseases: Introduction to, and objectives of the 11th European Workshop on Periodontology consensus conference. J Clin Periodontol 2015; 42 Suppl 16: 1-4.
• 2. Yap AU, Wu SS, Chelvan S, Tan ES. Effect of hygiene maintenance procedures on surface roughness of composite restoratives. Oper Dent 2005; 30: 99-104.
• 3. Clerehugh V, Tugnait A. Periodontal diseases in children and adolescents: 2. Management. Dent Update 2001; 28: 274-281.
• 4. Neme AM, Wagner WC, Pink FE, Frazier KB. The effect of prophylactic polishing pastes and toothbrushing on the surface roughness of resin composite materials in vitro. Oper Dent 2003; 28: 808-815.
• 5. Kawai K, Urano M, Ebisu S. Effect of surface roughness of porcelain on adhesion of bacteria and their synthesizing glucans. J Prosthet Dent 2000; 83: 664-667.
• 6. 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.
• 7. Lai YL, Lin YC, Chang CS, Lee SY. Effects of sonic and ultrasonic scaling on the surface roughness of tooth-colored restorative materials for cervical lesions. Oper Dent 2007; 32: 273-278.
• 8. Mei L, Busscher HJ, van der Mei HC, Ren Y. Influence of surface roughness on streptococcal adhesion forces to composite resins. Dent Mater 2011; 27: 770-778.
• 9. Lee DH, Mai HN, Thant PP, Hong SH, Kim J, Jeong SM et al. Effects of different surface finishing protocols for zirconia on surface roughness and bacterial biofilm formation. J Adv Prosthodont 2019; 11: 41-47.
• 10. Eslemez Topcu E, Şahin O, Köroğlu A, Cömert F, Yilmaz B. Surface roughness and Streptococcus mutans adhesion on surface sealant agent coupled interim crown materials after dynamic loading. BMC Oral Health 2022; 22: 299.
• 11. Jones CS, Billington RW, Pearson GJ. The in vivo perception of roughness of restorations. Br Dent J 2004; 196: 42-45.
• 12. Jain V, Platt JA, Moore K, Spohr AM, Borges GA. Color stability, gloss, and surface roughness of indirect composite resins. J Oral Sci 2013 Mar; 55: 9-15.
• 13. 13. de Melo TP, Delgado A, Martins R, Lassila L, Garoushi S, Caldeira J, Azul AM, Vallittu P. Can specular gloss measurements predict the effectiveness of finishing/polishing protocols in dental polymers? A systematic review and linear mixed-effects prediction model. Oper Dent 2022; 47: 131-151.
• 14. Warren DP, Colescott TD, Henson HA, Powers JM. Effects of four prophylaxis pastes on surface roughness of a composite, a hybrid ionomer, and a compomer restorative material. J Esthet Restor Dent 2002; 14: 245-251.
• 15. Fratolin MM, Bianco VC, Santos MJ, Rizkalla AS, Santos GC Jr. The effect of prophylactic powders on the surface roughness of enamel. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2014; 35: 31-35.
• 16. Babina K, Polyakova M, Sokhova I, Doroshina V, Arakelyan M, Zaytsev A, Novozhilova N. The effect of ultrasonic scaling and airpowder polishing on the roughness of the enamel, three different nanocomposites, and composite/enamel and composite/cementum interfaces. Nanomaterials (Basel) 2021; 11: 3072.
• 17. Arefnia B, Koller M, Wimmer G, Lussi A, Haas M. In vitro study of surface changes induced on enamel and cementum by different scaling and polishing techniques. Oral Health Prev Dent 2021; 19: 85-92.
• 18. 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 225-226.
• 19. Siddanna GD, Valcanaia AJ, Fierro PH, Neiva GF, Fasbinder DJ. Surface evaluation of resilient CAD/CAM ceramics after contouring and polishing. J Esthet Restor Dent 2021; 33: 750-763.
• 20. O’Brien WJ. Dental materials and their selection. Quintessence Pub Co 2009.
• 21. Guilardi LF, Werner A, Jager N, Pereira GKR, Kleverlaan CJ, Rippe MP et al. The influence of roughness on the resistance to impact of different CAD/CAM dental ceramics. Braz Dent J 2021; 32: 54-65.
• 22. Teughels W, Van Assche N, Sliepen I, Quirynen M. Effect of material characteristics and/or surface topography on biofilm development. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006; 17 Suppl 2: 68-81.
• 23. 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.
• 24. Kimyai S, Lotfipour F, Pourabbas R, Sadr A, Nikazar S, Milani M. Effect of two prophylaxis methods on adherence of Streptococcus mutans to microfilled composite resin and giomer surfaces. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2011; 16: 561-567.
• 25. Yurdaguven H, Aykor A, Ozel E, Sabuncu H, Soyman M. Influence of a prophylaxis paste on surface roughness of different composites, porcelain, enamel and dentin surfaces. Eur J Dent 2012; 6: 1-8.
• 26. Monaco C, Arena A, Özcan M. Effect of prophylactic polishing pastes on roughness and translucency of lithium disilicate ceramic. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2014; 34: 26-29.
• 27. Monaco C, Arena A, Scheda L, Di Fiore A, Zucchelli G. In vitro 2D and 3D roughness and spectrophotometric and gloss analyses of ceramic materials after polishing with different prophylactic pastes. J Prosthet Dent 2020; 124: 787.e1-787.e8.
• 28. Can Say E, Yurdagüven H, Malkondu Ö, Ünlü N, Soyman M, Kazazoğlu E. The effect of prophylactic polishing pastes on surface roughness of indirect restorative materials. ScientificWorldJournal 2014; 2014: 962764.
• 29. Sugiyama T, Kameyama A, Enokuchi T, Haruyama A, Chiba A, Sugiyama S et al. Effect of professional dental prophylaxis on the surface gloss and roughness of CAD/CAM restorative materials. J Clin Exp Dent 2017; 9: 772-778.
• 30. Covey DA, Barnes C, Watanabe H, Johnson WW. Effects of a paste-free prophylaxis polishing cup and various prophylaxis polishing pastes on tooth enamel and restorative materials. Gen Dent 2011; 59: 466-473; quiz 474-475.
• 31. ADA Professional Product Review (2010) Polishing systems 5(1) 2-16.
• 32. Liebermann A, Spintzyk S, Reymus M, Schweizer E, Stawarczyk B. Nine prophylactic polishing pastes: impact on discoloration, gloss, and surface properties of a CAD/CAM resin composite. Clin Oral Investig 2019; 23: 327-335.