Effects of toothbrushing on surface characteristics of microhybrid and nanofilled resin composites following different finishing and polishing procedures

Abstract

To evaluate the effects of simulated tooth brushing (STB) on the surface roughness of microhybrid and nanofilled resin composites following different finishing and polishing procedures. Materials and methods: Ninety cylindrical-shaped specimens of Filtek Supreme XT (a universal nano resin composite) and Filtek Z250 (a universal microhybrid resin composite) were prepared. The specimens were allocated at random into 9 paired groups each of 10 specimens. The finishing and polishing systems included were Tungsten Carbide bur (TC); Diamond bur (Db); Sof-Lex discs (S); PoGo discs (PG); TC + S; Db + S; TC + PG; Db + PG. Polymerisation against a Mylar strip without finishing and polishing acted as the control. Surface roughness was measured using a 3D non-contact optical profilometer and surface morphology was examined by scanning electron microscopy. Specimens were subjected to the equivalent of four years STB and surface roughness was measured again. Results: Mylar formed surfaces were the smoothest for both composites before and after STB. Finishing with the diamond finishing bur caused significantly greater surface irregularity (p < 0.0001) before and after STB compared to the tungsten carbide bur. The surface treatment with Db + PG resulted in significantly greater surface roughness following STB than all other regimes of finishing and polishing (p < 0.01). Conclusion: Where indicated clinically, finishing is better conducted using a tungsten carbide bur rather than a diamond finishing bur. The combination of tungsten carbide bur/Enhance PoGo and tungsten carbide bur/Sof-Lex surface protocols produced a similarly smooth finish for both composites. The composite surfaces in all groups increased in surface irregularity following STB. Clinical significance: Whilst finishing using a tungsten carbide finishing bur followed by either the Sof-Lex or PoGo polishing system may be found to result in a smooth surface finish, all the surfaces investigated increased in surface roughness following toothbrushing.

Which Finishing And Polishing Technique Is More Effective For Surface Roughness And Microhardness?

“…In clinical practice, the finishing of resin restorative materials under a Mylar strip results in the lowest surface roughness. 2,4,8,[12][13][14]22,24 The initial surface obtained by using a Mylar strip is an unstable and resin free surface, rich in organic matrix and monomers. 2,9 Therefore, this layer should be removed through finishing and polishing procedure.…”

“…21 Therefore, finishing and polishing techniques are critical and should be applied to improve the chemical stability of the material, the mechanical surface properties, and to remove the resin-rich surface layer. 20,21,24 Every restorative material has a different microhardness value as the chemical composition and filler content affect physical properties. 2,13,17,18 The materials with higher filler content have higher microhardness values.…”

Di̇ş Firçalamanin Çocuk Di̇ş Heki̇mli̇ği̇nde Kullanilan Farkli Restorati̇f Materyallerde Yüzey Pürüzlülüğü Üzeri̇ne Etki̇si̇

“…Her bir diş fırçası tutucu kolunun üzerine 200 g (2 N) pirinç ağırlıklar monte edildi 10 . Fırçalama işleminde kullanılmak üzere 1:1 oranında distile su ve hidrate silika aşındırıcı partikülü içeren çocuk diş macunu (Colgate, New York, ABD) karışımı hazırlanarak örneklerin üzerini örtecek şekilde numune kaplarına yerleştirildi 23 . Sulandırılmış diş macunu karışımı her bir örnekte ve 3 aylık fırçalama sürelerine denk gelen 2500 siklus aralıklarında değiştirildi.…”

Surface evaluations of a nanocomposite after different finishing and polishing systems for anterior and posterior restorations

“…Finishing is defined as the gross contouring or reduction of a restoration to obtain an ideal anatomy, while polishing refers to the reduction of roughness and scratches, which are generated by finishing instruments (Erdemir, Sancakli, & Yildiz, 2012 ; Yap, Sau, & Lye, 1998 ). A variety of F/P systems are currently available in the market, including multistep discs, fine and superfine diamond burs, abrasive discs, and diamond, silicon, or aluminium oxide‐impregnated soft rubber cups (Daud et al, 2020 ; Erdemir et al, 2012 ; Magdy et al, 2017 ; Yap et al, 1998 ). Furthermore, the F/P protocols may include the sequential use of instruments and pastes with a progressive decrease in abrasion (Ehrmann, Medioni, & Brulat‐Bouchard, 2018 ).…”