The effect of one-step polishing system on the surface roughness of three esthetic resin composite materials.
Proper finishing of restorations is desirable not only for aesthetic considerations but also for oral health. The primary goal of finishing is to obtain a restoration that has good contour, occlusion, healthy embrasure forms and a smooth surface. This study investigated: 1) analyzing the surface roughness of three resin composites finished and polished with a new one-step and two conventional multi-step polishing systems and 2) evaluating the effectiveness of one-step polishing system and surface morphology using scanning electron microscope analysis (SEM). Specimens (N = 72) measuring 8-mm in diameter x 2-mm in thickness were fabricated in a plexiglass mold covered with a Mylar strip using three esthetic resin composites. After polymerization six specimens per resin composite received no finishing treatment and served as a control. Fifty-four specimens were randomly polished with Sof-Lex discs, Enhance disc with polishing paste or PoGo for 30 seconds after being ground wet with a 1200 grit silicon carbide paper. The average surface roughness of each polished specimen was determined with a profilometer (Surtronic 4). The data were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA and Scheffe's post-hoc test of multiple comparisons (p < or = 0.01). Representative samples of the mentioned finishing procedures were selected and examined using a scanning electron microscope (SEM). There was no surface roughness in all resin composites tested against Mylar strip. The results showed no difference between the surfaces of Clearfil ST and Esthet-X polished with PoGo and the Mylar group (p > or = 0.01). Among all the polishing systems tested, PoGo exhibited the smoothest finish for all resin composites. The combination of Enhance and Prisma Gloss polishing paste exhibited the highest roughness values for Filtek A110 and Clearfil ST; however, it gave the same Ra values as PoGo for Esthet-X (p < or = 0.01). SEM analysis of Esthet-X samples confirmed the profilometer's results. The surfaces of the Clearfil ST discs polished with PoGo resemble that of Mylar, while Enhance and Sof-Lex exposed and dislodged the filler particles. PoGo scratched in some places Filtek A110's surface, while Enhance produced mostly a Mylar-like surface with dislodged fillers in some places.
Türkün
L S
LS
Ege University School of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics, Izmir-Turkey. sebnemturkun@hotmail.com
Türkün
M
M
D000537:Aluminum Oxide; D000704:Analysis of Variance; D003188:Composite Resins; D003775:Dental Polishing / Q000295:instrumentation* / Q000379:methods*; D003793:Dental Restoration, Permanent; D018130:Diamond; D008855:Microscopy, Electron, Scanning; D018709:Statistics, Nonparametric; D013499:Surface Properties
C483502:Clearfil ST; D003188:Composite Resins; C466112:Esthet-X; C452225:Filtek A110 composite resin; D018130:Diamond; D000537:Aluminum Oxide