title: Effects of air-polishing powders on color stability of composite resins.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of different air-polishing powders on the color stability of different types of composite resin restorative materials.
  
  
  METHODS
  Thirty cylindrical specimens (15×2 mm) were prepared for each of 7 composite resin restorative materials. All specimens were polished with a series of aluminum oxide polishing discs (Sof-Lex). The prepared specimens of each composite resin were randomly divided into 3 groups of 10 specimens each, for control (Group-C) and two air-powder applications (Group-CP: Cavitron Prophy-Jet; Group-PS: Sirona ProSmile prophylaxis powder). A standard air-polishing unit (ProSmile Handly) was used. All specimens were air-powdered for 10 s at 4-bar pressure. The distance of the spray nosel from the specimens was approximately 10 mm and angulation of the nosel was 90°. Specimens were stored in 100 mL of coffee (Nescafe Classic) for 24 h at 37°C. Color measurement of all specimens was recorded before and after exposure to staining agent with a colorimeter (Minolta CR-300). Color differences (∆E*) between the 2 color measurements (baseline and after 24 h storage) were calculated. The data were analyzed with a 2-way ANOVA test, and mean values were compared by the Tukey HSD test (p<0.05).
  
  
  RESULTS
  According to the 2-way ANOVA results, composite resin restorative materials, air-polishing powders, and their interaction were statistically significant (p<0.05) For Aelite Aesthetic Enemal, Filtek Z250, Grandio, CeramX Mono, and Quixfil composite resin restorative materials, no significant difference was observed between Group-PS and Group-CP (p>.05) and these groups demonstrated the highest ∆E* values. For Filtek Silorane and IntenS, the highest ∆E* values were observed in Group-PS. The lowest ∆E* values for all composite resin groups were observed in Group-C. When comparing the 7 composite resin restorative materials, Aelite Aesthetic Enemal demonstrated significantly less ∆E* values than the other composite resins tested. The highest ∆E* values were observed in Quixfil.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Except for Quixfil, all control groups of composite resins that were polished Sof-Lex exhibited clinically acceptable ∆E values (<3.7). Air-polishing applications increased the color change for all composite resin restorative materials tested. Composite restorations may require re-polishing after air-polishing.
authors.affiliation: Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ondokuz Mayıs University, Kurupelit, Samsun, Turkey. auguler@omu.edu.tr
authors.forename: Ahmet Umut
authors.initials: AU
authors.lastname: Güler
authors.forename: Ibrahim
authors.initials: I
authors.lastname: Duran
authors.forename: Ali Çağin
authors.initials: AÇ
authors.lastname: Yücel
authors.forename: Pelin
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Ozkan
mesh_terms: D000399:Air Pressure; D000537:Aluminum Oxide / Q000737:chemistry; D000704:Analysis of Variance; D003116:Color; D003124:Colorimetry; D003188:Composite Resins / Q000737:chemistry*; D003775:Dental Polishing / Q000379:methods*; D008422:Materials Testing; D011208:Powders; D017797:Prosthesis Coloring; D011897:Random Allocation; D013499:Surface Properties; D013997:Time Factors
chemical_list: D003188:Composite Resins; D011208:Powders; D000537:Aluminum Oxide