Comparison of different polishing methods on the surface roughness of microhybrid, microfill, and nanofill composite resins

Moda, Mariana Dias; Godas, André Gustavo de Lima; Fernandes, Juliana Cristina da Costa; Suzuki, Thaís Yumi Umeda; Guedes, Ana Paula Albuquerque; Briso, André Luiz Fraga; Bedran-Russo, Anakarina B.; Santos, Paulo Henrique dos

doi:10.1111/jicd.12287

Cited by 28 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The rapidly increasing number of parameters was called "the parameter rash" by Whitehouse, in 1982 already [21]. The arithmetical mean roughness value (R a ) is the most commonly used parameter for in vitro and in vivo surface roughness evaluation [22][23][24][25][26][27]. While R a describes the roughness along a two-dimensional profile, S a is the arithmetical mean deviation of surface roughness, and characterizes the surface roughness three-dimensionally [20].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predictability of Microbial Adhesion to Dental Materials by Roughness Parameters

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Microbial adhesion to intraoral biomaterials is associated with surface roughness. For the prevention of oral pathologies, smooth surfaces with little biofilm formation are required. Ideally, appropriate roughness parameters make microbial adhesion predictable. Although a multitude of parameters are available, surface roughness is commonly described by the arithmetical mean roughness value (Ra). The present study investigates whether Ra is the most appropriate roughness parameter in terms of prediction for microbial adhesion to dental biomaterials. After four surface roughness modifications using standardized polishing protocols, zirconia, polymethylmethacrylate, polyetheretherketone, and titanium alloy specimens were characterized by Ra as well as 17 other parameters using confocal microscopy. Specimens of the tested materials were colonized by C. albicans or S. sanguinis for 2 h; the adhesion was measured via luminescence assays and correlated with the roughness parameters. The adhesion of C. albicans showed a tendency to increase with increasing the surface roughness—the adhesion of S. sanguinis showed no such tendency. Although Sa, that is, the arithmetical mean deviation of surface roughness, and Rdc, that is, the profile section height between two material ratios, showed higher correlations with the microbial adhesion than Ra, these differences were not significant. Within the limitations of this in-vitro study, we conclude that Ra is a sufficient roughness parameter in terms of prediction for initial microbial adhesion to dental biomaterials with polished surfaces.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predictability of Microbial Adhesion to Dental Materials by Roughness Parameters

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Besides, it has low cost compared to indirect materials. [4,[12][13][14] This material consists of an organic matrix of polymerizable resin bonded chemically to filler particles by the bonding agent, silane [15]. Nanocomposite was the restorative material used in both cases since their indication is already proved in the literature for restorations of anterior teeth.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The existing restorations were removed with a spherical diamond bur #1014 (KG Sorensen, Barueri, Brazil), used under constant water irrigation (Figure 6b). Then, adequate isolation was performed using a rubber dam isolation modificated (15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25) (Figure 6c). After the teeth preparation, the same adhesive protocol and materials applied in case 1 were performed.…”

Section: Casementioning

confidence: 99%

Minimally invasive aesthetic rehabilitation in composite resin: report of two clinical cases

Pedreira

Damasceno

Pierote

et al. 2019

BDS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patient demand looking for the perfect smile has been steadily growing in the last few years. Thus, these two case reports discuss some ultra-conservatives approach to achieve good esthetic results. In the first case the clinical protocol of a restorative approach is described, the cosmetic remodeling of the teeth and in the second case, the replacement of extensive unsatisfactory composite restorations. The treatment planning was based on diagnostic waxing and the making of mock-up in both cases. Teeth bleaching were also performed before restoration. To conclude, these conservative relative therapies with composite resin restorations provide an ultra-minimally invasive protocol with excellent esthetic appearances and fuction, especially for young people. KeywordsDental esthetics; Composite resins; Smiling; Restoration.

show abstract

“…15 Tingkat kekerasan pada Moh's Hardness menentukan keefektivitasan kerja suatu alat finishing. 17 Partikel bahan abrasif dengan kekerasan lebih tinggi menghasilkan permukaan yang lebih kasar. 17 Prosedur pemolesan pada tahap finishing membutuhkan alat yang memiliki ukuran grit partikel abrasif paling kasar terlebih dahulu.…”

Section: Pendahuluanunclassified

“…17 Partikel bahan abrasif dengan kekerasan lebih tinggi menghasilkan permukaan yang lebih kasar. 17 Prosedur pemolesan pada tahap finishing membutuhkan alat yang memiliki ukuran grit partikel abrasif paling kasar terlebih dahulu. 15 Penggunaan partikel abrasif yang dilakukan sesuai urutannya memberikan keuntungan antara lain dapat meratakan keberadaan goresan yang lebih dalam, mengurangi material yang kasar lebih cepat, serta mengikis partikel filler secara merata.…”

Section: Pendahuluanunclassified

Perbedaan nilai kekasaran permukaan hasil finishing dengan menggunakan batu Arkansas dan fine diamond bur pada komposit Nanofiller

Maretta¹,

Prisinda²,

Muryani³

2018

Padjadjaran J Dent Res Students

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tahap akhir prosedur restorasi yaitu finishing dan polishing. Prosedur finishing perlu dilakukan dengan baik untuk menghasilkan kontur dan hasil restorasi yang optimal. Tujuan penelitian ini untuk mengetahui nilai kekasaran permukaan dari restorasi resin komposit nanofiller yang dilakukan finishing dengan batu Arkansas dan fine diamond bur. Metode: Jenis penelitian yang digunakan adalah eksperimental semu. Sampel penelitian yaitu komposit nanofiller berbentuk silinder dengan ukuran diameter 6 mm dan tinggi 3 mm. Jumlah sampel adalah 32 buah yang dibagi menjadi dua kelompok. Kelompok pertama terdiri dari 16 sampel yang dilakukan finishing dengan batu Arkansas dan kelompok kedua dengan fine diamond bur. Kekasaran permukaan sampel diukur dengan alat uji Surface Roughness Tester. Analisis data menggunakan uji statistik T-Test Independent. Hasil: Rata-rata nilai kekasaran permukaan finishing batu Arkansas 0.59 μm dan fine diamond bur 0.77 μm. Kelompok resin komposit nanofiller yang dilakukan finishing dengan fine diamond bur lebih kasar dibandingkan dengan batu Arkansas. Simpulan: terdapat perbedaan yang signifikan pada nilai kekasaran permukaan komposit nanofiller hasil finishing antara batu Arkansas dengan fine diamond bur.

show abstract

Comparison of different polishing methods on the surface roughness of microhybrid, microfill, and nanofill composite resins

Abstract: The thermocycling was concluded as being able to change composite resins' surface roughness, whereas different finishing and polishing methods did not result in surface roughness changes after thermocycling.

Cited by 28 publications

References 17 publications

Predictability of Microbial Adhesion to Dental Materials by Roughness Parameters

Predictability of Microbial Adhesion to Dental Materials by Roughness Parameters

Minimally invasive aesthetic rehabilitation in composite resin: report of two clinical cases

Perbedaan nilai kekasaran permukaan hasil finishing dengan menggunakan batu Arkansas dan fine diamond bur pada komposit Nanofiller

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About