The effect of various polishing systems on the surface roughness of composite resins

Öz

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of three finishing and polishing systems on the surface roughness of nano-manufactured composite resins.

MATERIALS AND METHOD: Nano-ceramic Ceram-X (Dentsply DeTrey, Konstanz, Germany), nano-filled Premise (Kerr Corporation, Orange, NJ, USA) and nano-filled Clearfil Majestic (Kuraray Medical Inc., Tokyo, Japan) composite resins were tested. Forty samples of each material were cured under matrix strips. The samples were then randomly assigned into four test groups: 1) unpolished; 2) polished with burs out of resin reinforced by zircon-rich glass fiber (Stainbuster, Abrasive Technology, Inc., Lewis Center, OH, USA); 3) polished with aluminum oxide impregnated polymer points (Enhance Finishing System, Dentsply Caulk, Milford, DE, USA) followed by diamond impregnated micro-polishing points (PoGo, Dentsply Caulk); and 4) polished with aluminum oxide disks (Sof-Lex, Dentsply Caulk). The sample surface roughness values (Ra) were determined using a profilometer, and the surfaces were observed under a scanning electron microscope. Data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test.

RESULTS: No statistically significant differences in surface roughness were detected among the finishing and polishing systems (p>0.05). However, all finishing and polishing techniques created statistically rougher surfaces than the control group (p<0.05). The mean Ra values of the finishing and polishing systems were ranked as follows: Mylar strip < Enhance Finishing System+PoGo < Stainbuster < Sof-Lex. These findings were confirmed by scanning electron microscope photomicrographs.

CONCLUSION: All polishing systems produced clinically acceptable surface roughness on the tested composite materials. The smoothest surfaces were achieved using the nano-ceramic composites with the Enhance Finishing System and PoGo.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Composite dental resin,dental esthetic,dental polishing

Farklı polisaj sistemlerinin kompozit rezinlerin yüzey pürüzlülüğüne etkisi

Öz

AMAÇ: Bu in vitro çalışmanın amacı üç farklı bitirme ve cilalama sisteminin nano-teknoloji ile üretilmiş kompozit rezinlerin yüzey pürüzlülüğüne etkisini incelemektir.

GEREÇ VE YÖNTEM: Bu çalışmada nano-seramik Ceram-X (Dentsply DeTrey, Konstanz, Almanya), nano-dolduruculu Premise (Kerr Corporation, Orange, NJ, ABD) ve nano-dolduruculu Clearfil Majestic (Kuraray Medical Inc., Tokyo, Japonya) test edildi. Her bir materyalden 40 adet örnek şeffaf bantlar kullanılarak hazırlandı. Materyaller 10’ar örnekten oluşan 4 çalışma grubuna ayrıldı: 1) cilalanmamış, 2) zirkondan zengin cam fiber ile güçlendirilmiş rezin frezlerle cilalanmış (Stainbuster, Abrasive Technology, Inc., Lewis Center, OH, ABD), 3) alüminyum oksit ile kaplanmış polimer uçlar (Enhance Finishing System, Dentsply Caulk, Milford, DE, ABD) ardından elmas kaplı mikro-cilalama uçları (PoGo, Dentsply Caulk) ile cilalanmış ve 4) alüminyum oksit diskleri ile cilalanmış (Sof-Lex, Dentsply Caulk). Tüm örneklerin yüzey pürüzlülük değerleri (Ra) optik profilometre ile değerlendirildi, yüzeyler taramalı elektron mikroskopu (SEM) ile incelendi. Veriler Kruskal-Wallis testi kullanılarak istatistiksel olarak analiz edildi.

BULGULAR: Bitirme ve cilalama sistemlerinin yüzey pürüzlülüğüne istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir etkisinin olmadığı belirlendi (p>0.05). Bununla beraber, tüm bitirme ve cilalama sistemlerinin kontrol grubuna göre istatistiksel olarak anlamlı derecede daha pürüzlü yüzeyler oluşturduğu görüldü (p<0.05). Bitirme ve cilalama sistemlerinin Ra değerlerine göre sıralaması: Mylar strip < Enhance Finishing System+PoGo < Stainbuster < Sof-Lex olarak bulgulandı. Sonuçlar SEM görüntüleri ile de doğrulandı.

SONUÇ: Tüm cilalama sistemlerinin test edilen kompozit materyalleri üzerinde klinik olarak kabul edilebilir düzeyde yüzey pürüzlülüğü oluşturduğu görüldü. Diğer bitirme sistemlerine göre en düzgün yüzeyler Enhance Finishing System+PoGo ile nano-seramik kompozitler üzerinde elde edildi.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• dental estetik,diş parlatma,kompozit dental rezin

Kaynakça

1. Can Say E, Yurdagüven H, Yaman BC, Özer F. Surface roughness and morphology of resin composites polished with two-step polishing systems. Dent Mater J 2014;33:332-42.
2. Barakah HM, Taher NM. Effect of polishing systems on stain susceptibility and surface roughness of nanocomposite resin material. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:625-31.
3. Hoelscher DC, Neme AM, Pink FE, Hughes PJ. The effect of three finishing systems on four esthetic restorative materials. Oper Dent 1998;23:36-42.
4. Tjan AH, Chan CA. The polishability of posterior composites. J Prosthet Dent 1989;61:138-46.
5. 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;11:169-78.
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;13:258-69.
7. Uçtaşli MB, Bala O, Güllü A. Surface roughness of flowable and packable composite resin materials after finishing with abrasive discs. J Oral Rehabil 2004;31:1197-202.
8. Yap AU, Lye KW, Sau CW. Surface characteristics of tooth-colored restoratives polished utilizing different polishing systems. Oper Dent 1997;22:260-5.

9. Radlanski RJ, Best T. New carbide finishing burs to reduce polishing efforts of light-cured restorations. Quintessence Int 2007;38:e555-63.
10. Hondrum SO, Fernández R Jr. Contouring, finishing, and polishing Class 5 restorative materials. Oper Dent 1997;22:30-6.
11. Uçtaşli MB, Arisu HD, Omürlü H, Eligüzeloğlu E, Ozcan S, Ergun G. The effect of different finishing and polishing systems on the surface roughness of different composite restorative materials. J Contemp Dent Pract 2007;8:89-96.
12. Yap AU, Yap SH, Teo CK, Ng JJ. Comparison of surface finish of new aesthetic restorative materials. Oper Dent 2004;29:100-4.
13. Barbosa SH, Zanata RL, Navarro MF de Lima, Nunes OB. Effect of different finishing and polishing techniques on the surface roughness of microfilled, hybrid and packeble composite resins. Braz Dent J 2005;16:39-44.
14. Gedik R, Hürmüzlü F, Coşkun A, Bektaş OO, Ozdemir AK. Surface roughness of new microhybrid resin-based composites. J Am Dent Assoc 2005;136:1106-12.
15. Ozgünaltay G, Yazici AR, Görücü J. Effect of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface roughness of new tooth-coloured restoratives. J Oral Rehabil 2003;30:218-24.
16. Mota EG, Oshima HM, Burnett LH Jr, Pires LA, Rosa RS. Evaluation of diametral tensile strength and Knoop microhardness of five nanofilled composites in dentin and enamel shades. Stomatologija 2006;8:67-9.
17. Senawongse P, Pongprueksa P. Surface roughness of nanofill and nanohybrid resin composites after polishing and brushing. J Esthet Restor Dent 2007;19:265-73.
18. Schirrmeister JF, Huber K, Hellwig E, Hahn P. Two-year evaluation of a new nano-ceramic restorative material. Clin Oral Investig 2006;10:181-6.
19. Attar N. The Effect of Finishing and Polishing Procedures on the Surface Roughness of Composite Resin Materials. J Contemp Dent Pract 2007;8:27-35.
20. Yalçin F, Korkmaz Y, Başeren M. The effect of two different polishing techniques on microleakage of new composites in Class V restorations. J Contemp Dent Pract 2006;7:18-25.
21. 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;19:214-24.