Micrographic and profilometric evaluation of the finish produced by diamond and tungsten carbide finishing burs on enamel and dentin

Price, Richard; Sutow, E.J.

doi:10.1016/0022-3913(88)90275-2

Cited by 13 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Wear of the cutting edges creates facets which act as abrading points that may deform the surface and produce superficial debris. Burs with higher numbers of cutting flutes appear to produce smoother surfaces (Price & Sutow, 1988).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surface roughness and wettability of enamel and dentine surfaces prepared with different dental burs

Al-Omari

Mitchell

Cunningham

2001

J of Oral Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of dental adhesive restorations is to produce a long lasting union between the restoration and the tooth structure. This bond depends on many variables including the geometry of the preparation and the type of bonding agent or luting cement. It is therefore suggested that the topography of the tooth surface may influence the wettability and the bonding quality of adhesive systems. This study measured the surface roughness and wettability of enamel and dentine after preparation with different dental burs. The mesial and distal surfaces of 15 extracted sound human premolar teeth were prepared with a tungsten carbide crown bur, a diamond bur and a tungsten carbide finishing bur and finished in enamel or dentin, respectively. The prepared surfaces were analysed with a surface profilometer and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The contact angle of distilled water on each of the prepared surfaces was used as the measure of wettability. The differences in average surface roughness (Ra) were significant between the rotary instrument groups, as revealed by a two-way ANOVA test. No differences were detected between enamel and dentine surfaces prepared with the same type of dental bur. The smoothest surfaces were those completed with tungsten carbide finishing burs. The diamond bur preparations were intermediate in the roughness assessment and the tungsten carbide crown burs gave the roughest surfaces. There were no significant differences in the contact angle measurements for the various groups. It was concluded that the surface roughness of enamel and dentine prepared by different rotary instruments had no significant influence on the wettability of distilled water on these surfaces.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surface roughness and wettability of enamel and dentine surfaces prepared with different dental burs

Al-Omari

Mitchell

Cunningham

2001

J of Oral Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since handpiece reliability and consistency of operation are significant factors in cutting studies, the same handpiece was used during all testing procedures together with the recommended lubrication, to ensure consistent operation. Air pressure was controlled to be fixed all over the study, thus eliminating the need for external measurement or control of rotational speed [23].…”

Section: J Stoma Dent Res 2023mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Glass ceramics have been used in many studies to take advantage of their consistent density, absence of porosity and availability; for these reasons, the authors used a glass-ceramic substrate in this study [19,18,23,24].…”

Section: J Stoma Dent Res 2023mentioning

confidence: 99%

In Vitro Comparative of the Cutting Efficiency and Smear Layer of Ceramic Burs, Conventional Tungsten Carbide Burs and Diamond Stone

El Hoshy

2023

J Stoma Dent Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To compare the cutting efficiency and the smear layer of three different types of burs ceramic, tungsten carbide and diamond stone. Materials and Methods:135 mica-based glass ceramics (Vita blocs Mark II) blocks were used to valuate cutting efficiency by weight loss method. Five points from each type of burs: Cera Bur (komet, Brasseler, Germany): K59, Tungsten Carbide tapered Bur (komet, Brasseler, Germany): H2 010 and diamond points (komet, Brasseler, Germany): 957AM 314 010, were used for cutting procedures. Each bur had made 30 seconds duration cut, each bur was used three times. Cutting was performed under standardized protocol using a specially designed machine for this purpose. Twelve unerupted human third molars were used to obtain Dentin slabs. Cutting was performed using the same protocol and the smear layer created was observed by means of scanning electron microscope. Results: The values of weight loss were: 0.18 ± 0.08 gm, 0.40 ± 0.07 and 0.50 ± 0.07 gm for each bur respectively. Less dense smear layer was observed with the Cera Bur when compared to the tungsten carbide and diamond burs. Conclusion: The new tapered fissure ceramic bur can be considered a promising tool for minimally dentistry, while providing a minimal reduction of the sound, hard tooth substance.

show abstract

“…The three measurements per tooth were averaged to provide a mean surface roughness before bonding and for later comparison. 12 A grid overlay was used to identify the area to be scanned to assure analysis of the same area in subsequent scans.…”

Section: Teeth Selection/preparationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of traditional orthodontic polishing systems with novel non-orthodontic methods for residual adhesive removal

Andrews

Hagan

Armbruster

et al. 2016

Australasian Orthodontic Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Following the debonding of orthodontic brackets, the removal of residual adhesive from the enamel surface is required. Published adhesive removal protocols present conflicting advice. Aims The present study evaluated the surface roughness of enamel after debonding and instrumentation with non-traditional orthodontic polishing systems. Methods The facial aspects of 35 extracted human incisor teeth were scanned with a surface profilometer for surface roughness prior to the bonding of orthodontic brackets. After debonding, residual adhesive was removed with a 12-fluted titanium carbide bur. The teeth were randomly divided into seven groups (N = 5 per group) and the enamel surface was polished with one of seven products. All samples were re-scanned for surface roughness and subjectively evaluated via SEM. Results There was no significant difference in enamel surface roughness between the groups when compared using surface profilometry. Visual observations from the SEM evaluations demonstrated differences in the enamel surface at the microscopic level that were not detected by profilometric analysis. Conclusions The present study found no statistically significant difference in mean enamel smoothness change from pretreatment to post-treatment between the seven polishing methods studied via profilometer surface reading measurements. An SEM analysis showed visual differences in enamel striations viewed at 1000× magnification in a comparison of traditional versus non-traditional polishing methods.

show abstract

Micrographic and profilometric evaluation of the finish produced by diamond and tungsten carbide finishing burs on enamel and dentin

Cited by 13 publications

References 7 publications

Surface roughness and wettability of enamel and dentine surfaces prepared with different dental burs

Surface roughness and wettability of enamel and dentine surfaces prepared with different dental burs

In Vitro Comparative of the Cutting Efficiency and Smear Layer of Ceramic Burs, Conventional Tungsten Carbide Burs and Diamond Stone

Comparison of traditional orthodontic polishing systems with novel non-orthodontic methods for residual adhesive removal

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About