Superficial roughness on composite surface, composite enamel and composite dentin junctions after different finishing and polishing procedures. Part I: roughness after treatments with tungsten carbide vs diamond burs.
The aim of this study is to investigate different instruments for finishing composite restorations, as well as examining different surfaces and interfaces of the same restoration. The null hypothesis is represented by the fact that there are no significant differences on roughness of composite restorations finishing between tungsten carbide and diamond burs, furthermore the null hypothesis is that there are no significant differences on roughness between finishing on composite surfaces (C), compositeenamel (CE) and composite-dentin (CD) interfaces. The study was performed on 28 teeth, and class V cavities were prepared on the extracted teeth. Restorations were done in Filtek XTE nanofilled composite (3M Espe) in a standardized method, to then be finished. A comparison was made in the phase 1 between tungsten carbide burs (16 blades), diamond burs (46 μm), with a similar shape by the same manufacturer (Komet). Each surface received 5 bur applications. Consequently, an analysis with a profilometer was performed. Phase 2 involved further confrontation of ulterior finishing with ultrafine tungsten carbide burs (30 blades) and with extra and ultrafine diamond burs (25 and 8 μm) (the same shape as previously mentioned). A second analysis was then performed with a profilometer. All measurements were taken on C surfaces, CE and CD interfaces. Statistical analyses were carried out with c2 test (a = 0.05).


CONCLUSIONS
The finishing procedures with fine grit or toothing burs gave a better smoothness with tungsten carbide burs compared to diamond burs. While with the ultrafine grit no significant differences were noted between tungsten carbide and diamond burs on the CE and CD interfaces, the diamond bur left less superficial roughness on the C surfaces. With regards to the superficial roughness of the different areas of restoration, it can be concluded that: minor roughness was detected on C surfaces, while the CD interface had the most superficial roughness, regardless of whether the diamond burs or tungsten carbide burs were used. This study shows some statistical differences that could not be clinically perceivable. The clinical relevance could be resumed as follows: the fine tungsten carbide burs provided less roughness compared to a fine diamond bur. There were no differences between the ultrafine tungsten carbide and diamond burs. The less favourable interface to be finished is CD, compared to the CE interface and C surfaces.
Federico
F
Ferraris
Alessandro
A
Conti
D000134:Acid Etching, Dental / Q000379:methods; D002710:Chlorhexidine / Q000031:analogs & derivatives / Q000737:chemistry; D003188:Composite Resins / Q000737:chemistry*; D003737:Dental Cavity Preparation / Q000145:classification / Q000295:instrumentation; D003743:Dental Enamel / Q000648:ultrastructure*; D003764:Dental Materials / Q000737:chemistry*; D003775:Dental Polishing / Q000295:instrumentation* / Q000379:methods; D003804:Dentin / Q000648:ultrastructure*; D018130:Diamond / Q000737:chemistry*; D004867:Equipment Design; D006801:Humans; D008422:Materials Testing; D053761:Nanocomposites / Q000737:chemistry; D010316:Particle Size; D010756:Phosphoric Acids / Q000737:chemistry; D019279:Resin Cements / Q000737:chemistry; D013499:Surface Properties; D017973:Tungsten Compounds / Q000737:chemistry*
D003188:Composite Resins; D003764:Dental Materials; C474035:Filtek Supreme; C469607:OptiBond FL; D010756:Phosphoric Acids; D019279:Resin Cements; D017973:Tungsten Compounds; C452226:tetric flow composite resin; C002802:tungsten carbide; D018130:Diamond; C030242:phosphoric acid; C010882:chlorhexidine gluconate; D002710:Chlorhexidine