Effects of four prophylaxis pastes on surface roughness of a composite, a hybrid ionomer, and a compomer restorative material.
OBJECTIVE
This study was undertaken to compare the effects of three prophylaxis pastes (Nupro with coarse, medium, or fine pumice) with a new paste (Clinpro with perlite) on the surface roughness of a resin composite (Dyract AP), a hybrid ionomer (Fuji II LC), and a compomer (TPH Spectrum).


METHODS
Twenty disks (2 mm thick x 10 mm in diameter) of each material were prepared in split molds and stored for 24 hours at 37 degrees C in a 100% relative humidity humidistat. Baseline Mylar surface roughness values were determined. A single operator polished each specimen for 10 seconds with each paste. Five tracings of each specimen of surface roughness (Ra, microm) were made using a surface profilometer. Means and standard deviations were calculated, and analyzed by two-way analysis of variance (three restorative materials and four prophylaxis pastes as factors) and compared using Tukey-Kramer intervals calculated at the 0.05 level of significance.


RESULTS
Analysis of variance showed significant differences among restorative materials (after polishing) and prophylaxis polishing agents. Tukey-Kramer intervals for comparisons were 0.04 and 0.05 microm, respectively. All polishing agents produced significant increased roughness compared with baseline, yielding the following results (X + SD, microm) for the three restorative materials (Fuji II LC, TPH Spectrum, Dyract AP): perlite, 0.16 +/- 0.07, 0.28 +/- 0.26, 0.79 +/- 0.64; course pumice, 0.36 +/- 0.17, 0.48 +/- 0.25, 0.88 +/- 0.46; medium pumice, 0.26 +/- 0.10, 0.35 +/- 0.30, 0.46 +/- 0.21; and fine pumice, 0.16 +/- 0.06, 0.34 +/- 0.30, 0.42 +/- 0.24). Fine pumice and perlite produced the least roughness on the hybrid ionomer, medium and fine pumice on the resin composite, and perlite on the compomer.


CONCLUSIONS
Since prophylaxis pastes have the potential to increase the surface roughness of resin composite, hybrid ionomer, and compomer restorative materials, routine polishing during prophylaxis should be avoided.
Warren
Donna P
DP
Department of Dental Public Health and Dental Hygiene, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston 77030-3402, USA. Donna.P.Warren@uth.tmc.edu
Colescott
Tara Debner
TD
Henson
Harold A
HA
Powers
John M
JM
D000537:Aluminum Oxide; D000704:Analysis of Variance; D020770:Compomers; D003188:Composite Resins; D003775:Dental Polishing; D003777:Dental Prophylaxis; D019554:Dental Restoration Wear; D003793:Dental Restoration, Permanent; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements; D006801:Humans; D008689:Methacrylates; D012117:Resins, Synthetic; D017640:Silicates; D012822:Silicon Dioxide; D013499:Surface Properties
D020770:Compomers; D003188:Composite Resins; C088486:Dyract; C079765:Fuji II LC cement; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements; D008689:Methacrylates; D012117:Resins, Synthetic; D017640:Silicates; C113300:TPH hybrid; C003076:Perlite; D012822:Silicon Dioxide; D000537:Aluminum Oxide; C005144:pumice