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

Abstract

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.

Effect of dentinal surface preparation on bond strength of self-etching adhesive systems

“…The diamond bur created a thicker smear layer than did other treatments, and formed a rough dentin surface with deeper and uniform grooves, different from those created by the carbide bur 1,4 ( Figures 1A1 and 2B). Evaluating dentin permeability before and after application of Clearfil SE Bond, Vaysman et al 18 (2003) observed that the highest reduction in bonded dentin permeability and an increase in sealing ability occurred when the self-etching adhesive system was applied to the roughest dentin surface.…”

Influence of surface treatment of contaminated zirconia on surface free energy and resin cement bonding

“…The wetting of the adherent surface by an adhesive could be indicated by the contact angle. Measurements of the contact angle on adherent surfaces provide information about the surface free energies that relate to the bonding characteristics of solids [11][12][13] . The surface free energy of a solid (γS) is defined as the sum of the dispersion, hydrogen bonding, and polar forces.…”

Comparison on Surface Roughness and Its Effect on Bonding between Conventional Bur and Laser Cut Cavities: An in vitro Study

“…21 Surface roughness plays as the prime criterion in enhancing adhesion of restoration by increasing the surface area and improving the wettability properties. 3 It is measured in Ra (arithmetic mean) and Rv (depth of surface roughness) values. 3 Though scanning electron microscope (SEM), transmission electron microscope (TEM), mechanical profilometer, light microscope, and atomic force microscope have been used for measuring surface roughness values, the inability of the sensor needles of these devices to penetrate all the irregularities have brought a 3D profilometer into focus.…”

“…3 It is measured in Ra (arithmetic mean) and Rv (depth of surface roughness) values. 3 Though scanning electron microscope (SEM), transmission electron microscope (TEM), mechanical profilometer, light microscope, and atomic force microscope have been used for measuring surface roughness values, the inability of the sensor needles of these devices to penetrate all the irregularities have brought a 3D profilometer into focus. This has the distinct advantage of being noncontact, nondestructive, and quick quantitative measurement for surface roughness providing multiples descriptions of surface roughness profiles beyond the ability of 2D surface profilometer.…”

“…2 It is presumed that surface roughness and irregularities promote the wettability by increasing surface area and that the bond between the adherend surface and the adhesive will be subsequently stronger. 3 Mechanical retention was mainly achieved by conventional burs, such as diamond burs and tungsten carbide burs which were commonly used for cavity preparations. 4 However, cavity preparation using rotary burs creates an amorphous layer of organic and inorganic debris, known as smear layer, on the surface of the enamel which interferes on bonding of the adhesive agents to enamel.…”