Effect of Different Prophylactic Polishing Procedures on the Surface Roughness of Microhybrid and Nanohybrid Resin Composites

Yıl 2018, Volume: 21 Issue: 2, 85 - 92, 29.07.2018

Kıvanç Yamanel

https://doi.org/10.7126/cumudj.410459

Cited By: 2

Öz

Objectives: The
aim of the present study was to evaluate effects of different professional
dental prophylaxis procedures on the surface roughness of a microhybrid
(Charisma, Heraeus-Kulzer) and a nanohybrid (Ice, SDI Dental) resin composites.

Materials and Methods: 45
disc shaped (2 mm thick /8 mm in diameter) specimens of each restorative
materials (totally 90 specimens) were prepared using plexyglass mold. One side
of specimens were polished with medium, fine and ultra-fine Sof-Lex (3M-ESPE) discs and 45 specimens of each composite
were randomly divided into five groups (n=9). The first group received no
prophylaxis treatment and served as control. The other groups received
prophlaxis procedures including Detartrine paste (Septodont) with rotating
rubber cup, Gelato paste (Keystone Industries) with
rotating rubber cup, pumice-water slurry with rotating rubber cup and pumice-water
slurry with rotating brush. After prophlaxis procedures surface roughness
values of all specimens were measured using an optical prophylometer (Zygo New View 7200, Ametek). Data was statistically
analyzed using Mann Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis Tests.

Results: The
smoothest surfaces were observed in control groups for both resin composites (p<0.05). Control groups’ surface roughness values
of resin composites tested were significantly different (p<0.001).
However there were no statistically significant differences between surface
roughness values of microhybrid and nanohybrid resin composites that received
same prophylaxis treatment. Gelato paste, pumice-water slurry with rotating
rubber cup and pumice-water slurry with rotating brush caused significantly
greater Ra values than control group but Ra values obtained with Detartrine
were not significantly different from the control group in both composite.

Conclusions: All
prophylaxis procedures tested in the study increased the roughness values of both
composites to a level that would be retantive to bacteria. Because of that
dental professional must be careful during prophylaxis procedures otherwise
repolishing or rarely replacement of the composite restoration would be
necessary after prophylaxis. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Prophylactic polishing, microhybrid composite, nanohybrid composite, surface roughness

Farklı Profilaktik Parlatma İşlemlerinin Mikrohibrit ve Nanohibrit Kompozit Rezinlerin Yüzey Pürüzlülüğü Üzerine Etkisi

Öz

Amaç: Bu
çalışmanın amacı, farklı profesyonel dental profilaksi işlemlerinin bir
mikrohibrit (Charisma, Heraeus-Kulzer) ve bir nanohibrit (Ice, SDI Dental)
kompozit rezinin yüzey pürüzlülüğü üzerine etkisini değerlendirmektir.

Gereç ve Yöntem: Her
restoratif materyalden 45 adet disk şekilli örnek (2 mm kalınlık ve 8 mm
çapında, toplam 90 örnek) plastik kalıplar kullanılarak hazırlandı. Örneklerin
bir yüzü orta, ince ve ultra ince grenli Sof-Lex (3M-ESPE) disklerle parlatıldı
ve her kompozitten 45 örnek rastgele beş gruba ayrıldı (n=9). İlk gruba
profilaksi işlemi uygulanmadı ve kontrol grubu olarak kullanıldı. Diğer
gruplar, Detartrine patı (Septodont), Gelato patı (Keystone Industries) ve
pomza-su karışımının dönen lastiklerle uygulandığı ve pomza-su karışımının
dönen fırçalarla uygulandığı profilaksi işlemlerine tabi tutuldu. Profilaksi
işlemlerinden sonra bütün örneklerin yüzey pürüzlülük değerleri bir optik
profilometre (Zygo New View 7200, Ametek) kullanılarak ölçüldü. Elde edilen
veriler Mann Whitney U ve Kruskal-Wallis testleriyle istatistiksel olarak
analiz edildi.

Bulgular: Her
iki kompozit rezin için en pürüzsüz
yüzeyler kontrol gruplarında gözlemlendi (p<0.05). Test edilen kompozit
rezinlerin kontrol gruplarının yüzey pürüzlülük değerleri birbirinden anlamlı
derecede farklıydı (p<0.001). Bununla birlikte aynı profilaksi işlemlerinin
uygulandığı mikrohibrit ve nanohibrit  kompozit
rezinlerin yüzey pürüzlülük değerleri arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı
derecede farklılık yoktu. Gelato patı, dönen lastik ve fırçayla uygulanan
pomza-su karışımı kontrol grubuna oranla anlamlı derecede yüksek Ra değerlerine
neden olmuştur fakat Detartrine ile elde edilen Ra değerleri her iki kompozitte
de kontrol grubundan anlamlı derecede farklı değildir.

Sonuç: Çalışmada
test edilen bütün profilaksi işlemleri, her iki kompozitte de yüzey pürüzlülük
değerlerini bakterilerin retansiyonuna neden olabilecek seviyeye kadar
yükseltmiştir. Bu sebeple diş hekimleri profilaksi işlemleri sırasında dikkatli
davranmalıdır aksi taktirde profilaksi sonrası kompozit rezinlerin yeniden
parlatılması veya nadiren de yenilenmesi gerekecektir. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

profilaktik parlatma, mikrohibrit kompozit, nanohibrit kompozit, yüzey pürüzlülüğü

Kaynakça

• 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: 275-9.
• 2. Hosoya Y, Shiraishi T, Odatsu T, Nagafuji J, Kotaku M, Miyazaki M, Powers JM. Effects of polishing on surface roughness, gloss, and color of resin composites. J Oral Sci. 2011; 53: 283-91.
• 3. Watanabe T, Miyazaki M, Takamizawa T, Kurokawa H, Rikuta A, Ando S. Influence of polishing duration on surface roughness of resin composites. J Oral Sci 2005; 47: 21-5.
• 4. Ozel E, Korkmaz Y, Attar N, Karabulut E. Effect of one-step polishing systems on surface roughness of different flowable restorative materials. Dent Mater J 2008; 27: 75564.
• 5. Patil SS, Rakhewar PS, Limaye PS, Chaudhari NP. A comparative evaluation of plaque-removing efficacy of air polishing and rubbercup, bristle brush with paste polishing on oral hygiene status: A clinical study. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2015; 5: 457-462.
• 6. Bames CM. The science of polishing. Dimen Dent Hyg. 2009; 7: 1822.
• 7. Castanho GM, Arana-Chavez VE, Fava M. Roughness of human enamel surface submitted to different prophylaxis methods. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2008; 32: 299-303.
• 8. Kimyai S, Mohammadi N, Oskoee PA, Pournaghi-Azar F, Chaharom MEE, Amini M. Effect of different prophylaxis methods on microleakage of microfilled composite restorations. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospect 2012; 6(2): 65-9.
• 9. Neme AL, 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: 808-15.
• 10. Yap AUJ, Wu SS, Chelvan S, Tan ESF. Effect of hygiene maintenance procedures on surface roughness of composite restoratives. Oper Dent 2005; 30: 99-104.
• 11. Sönmez IŞ, Oba AA, Ekinci S. Farklı profilaksi patlarının minenin yüzey pürüzlülüğü üzerine etkisi. AÜ Diş Hek Fak Derg 2013; 40: 13-17.
• 12. Sugiyama T, Kameyama A, Enokuchi T, Haruyama A, Chiba A. Effect of professional dental prophylaxis on the surface gloss and roughness of CAD/CAM restorative materials. J Clin Exp Dent. 2017; 9: e772-8.
• 13. Covey DA, Barnes C, Watanabe H, Johnson WW. Effects of pastefree prophylaxis polishing cup and various prophylaxis polishing pastes on tooth enamel and restorative materials. Gen Dent. 2011; 59: 466-73.
• 14. Kawamoto R, Gojoubori M, Shibasaki S, Matsuyoshi S, Suzuki S, Hirai K, et al. Influence of different PMTC pastes on surface roughness and plaque removal effectiveness. Jpn J Conserv Dent. 2016; 59: 402-9.
• 15. Miyamura Y. Effectiveness of PMTC applied to patient’s situation. J Acad Gnathol Occlusion. 2009; 29: 88-92.
• 16. Christensen RP, Bangerter VW. Determination of Rpm, time and load used in oral prophylaxis polishing in vivo. J Dent Res 1984; 63: 1376-1382.
• 17. Sawai MA, Bhardwaj A, Jafri Z, Sultan N, Anik D. Tooth polishing: The current status. J Indian Soc Periodontol 2015; 19: 375–380.
• 18. Rethman J. Polishing angles, cups and pastes. Pract Hyg. 1997; 1: 32–3.
• 19. 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.
• 20. Yap AU, Lye KW & Sau CW. Surface characteristics of tooth-colored restoratives polished utilizing different polishing system. Oper Dent 1997; 22: 260-265.
• 21. Kumari RV, Nagaraj H, Siddaraju K, Poluri RK. Evaluation of the effect of surface polishing, oral beverages and food colorants on color stability and surface roughness of nanocomposite resins. J Inter Oral Health 2015; 7: 63-70.
• 22. Chen MH. Update on dental nanocomposites. J Dent Res 2010; 89: 549-60.
• 23. Pires-de-Souza C, Filho B, Casemiro LA, Garcia LF, Consani S. Polymerization shrinkage stress of composites photoactivated by different light sources. Braz Dent J. 2009;20(4):319-24.
• 24. Sideridou ID, Karabela MM, Micheliou CN, Karagiannidis PG, Logothetidis S. Physical properties of a hybrid and a nanohybrid dental light-cured resin composite. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed. 2009; 20: 1831-44.
• 25. 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.
• 26. Gutmann ME, Marker VA, Gutmann JL. Restoration surface roughness after air-powder polishing. Am J Dent 1993; 6: 99-102.
• 27. Reel DC, Abrams H, Gardner SL, Mitchell RJ. Effect of a hydraulic jet prophylaxis system on composites. J Prosthet Dent 1989; 61: 441-445.
• 28. Roulet JF, Roulet-Mehrens TK. The surface roughness of restorative materials and dental tissues after polishing with prophylaxis and polishing pastes. J Periodontol 1982; 53: 257-266.
• 29. 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.
• 30. Lutz F, Sener B, Imfeld T, Barbakow F, Schupbach P. Comparison of the efficacy of prophylaxis pastes with conventional abrasives or a new self-adjusting abrasive. Quintessence Int 1993; 24: 193-201.
• 31. 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.