Effect of polishing techniques and time on surface roughness, hardness and microleakage of resin composite restorations.
This study evaluated the effects of immediate and delayed polishing on the surface roughness, microhardness and microleakage of a microfilled (Filtek A110) and a hybrid (Filtek Z250) resin composite. Standardized preparations were made on the buccal surfaces of 256 bovine teeth; half were restored with each composite (128 teeth per composite). Immediately after curing, gross finishing was carried out with #280 sandpaper. The specimens restored with each composite were divided into two subgroups. The first group (IM) was polished immediately after gross finishing, using three different systems (n=16): Sequence A, Sof-Lex; Sequence B, Flexicups and Sequence C, Flexicups + Jiffy Polishing Brush + Flexibuffs. The specimens were then stored for three weeks in saline 37 degrees C. The second group (DE) was stored for two weeks, then polished with the same systems and stored for one additional week. The controls (n=16) were analyzed without polishing. Five readings per specimen were taken for surface roughness and hardness. After immersion in basic fuchsin, microleakage was evaluated (40x) using standardized scores. The data were analyzed at a significance level of 0.05, with analysis of variance and an SNK test (surface roughness and microhardness) or with Kruskal-Wallis (microleakage). In both composites, only for the sequential technique was there an influence of delay in polishing on roughness (Ra). Flexicups exhibited the highest Ra of the three systems. The IM and Filtek Z-250 groups showed higher hardness than the DE and Filtek A-110 groups, respectively. Dentin margins showed more leakage than enamel margins; the sequential technique produced more leakage than the other techniques in dentin (p<0.05) and delay of polishing was not significant in the majority of situations. In conclusion, several conditions--composite, time and polishing technique--had a significant influence on surface roughness, hardness and microleakage. Generally, immediate polishing produced no detrimental effect compared to delayed polishing.
Venturini
Daniela
D
School of Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, RS, Brazil.
Cenci
Maximiliano Sérgio
MS
Demarco
Flávio Fernando
FF
Camacho
Guilherme Brião
GB
Powers
John M
JM
D000818:Animals; D017438:Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate / Q000737:chemistry; D002417:Cattle; D004396:Coloring Agents; D003188:Composite Resins / Q000737:chemistry*; D003743:Dental Enamel / Q000648:ultrastructure; D003763:Dental Leakage / Q000145:classification*; D003775:Dental Polishing / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods; D003793:Dental Restoration, Permanent; D003804:Dentin / Q000648:ultrastructure; D017220:Dentin-Bonding Agents / Q000737:chemistry; D006244:Hardness; D008422:Materials Testing; D012394:Rosaniline Dyes; D012965:Sodium Chloride / Q000737:chemistry; D013499:Surface Properties; D013696:Temperature; D013997:Time Factors
D004396:Coloring Agents; D003188:Composite Resins; D017220:Dentin-Bonding Agents; C452225:Filtek A110 composite resin; C444701:Filtek Z250; D012394:Rosaniline Dyes; C115612:single bond; D012965:Sodium Chloride; D017438:Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate; C025485:basic fuchsin