不同抛光及上釉方法对牙科陶瓷表面粗糙度的影响

目的 用多个参数评价不同表面粗糙度及上釉方法对陶瓷上釉后表面光洁度的影响,为临床修复体的制作提供可参考的依据.方法 制作盘状烤瓷试件100个,随机分为5组(A、B、C、D、E组),每组各20个,在注水条件下分别用碳化硅砂纸逐级打磨至220#、320#、600#、800#和1200#,各组再随机分为2亚组,每亚组10个,分别进行釉瓷上釉和自身上釉.上釉前、后分别测量表面粗糙度参数轮廓算术平均偏差(Ra)、轮廓的最大高度(Rz)、轮廓单元的平均宽度(RSm)以及粗糙度的最大峰值(Rp),并用扫描电镜定性分析表面形貌.结果 打磨至220#的陶瓷上釉后表面Ra最大[釉瓷上釉为(0.532 ± 0.109)μm、自身上釉(0.552 ± 0.123)μm],打磨至1200#的陶瓷上釉后表面Ra最小[釉瓷上釉为(0.201 ± 0.050)μm、自身上釉(0.126 ± 0.016)μm],两种上釉方法都能获得光滑的上釉表面.结论 上釉前的抛光处理以及不同上釉方法对上釉效果产生显著影响.     

五种抛光方法对玻璃陶瓷表面粗糙度的影响研究#br#

目的    比较临床上5种常用抛光方法对IPS e.max Press玻璃陶瓷调磨后表面粗糙度的影响。方法    选取临床常用修复材料IPS e.max Press玻璃陶瓷制作试件30个,随机分成6组（每组5个试件）,分别为对照组（常规上釉）、砂石组（绿色碳化硅砂石+氧化铝白砂石依次混合打磨抛光）、松风组（松风Ceramaster精细烤瓷砂石抛光）、EVE组（EVE氧化锆砂石抛光）、道邦组（道邦弹性瓷砂石抛光）、3M组（3M Sof-LexTM抛光套装）。常规调磨后按照各自不同的整体抛光打磨方法分别对试件表面依次进行抛光,扫描电镜下观察各组抛光后试件的表面形态,检测各组抛光后试件的表面粗糙度Ra值。结果　扫描电镜下观察可见3M组和道邦组抛光后试件表面较为平整光滑,划痕较少,与对照组类似;而砂石组和松风组试件表面划痕明显并伴有明显的凹坑;EVE组划痕较少且划痕条纹较平整,方向一致,有少许凹痕较对照组明显。各组抛光后试件的表面粗糙度Ra值由小到大顺序排列为：3M组［（0.207 ± 0.016）μm］、对照组［（0.208 ± 0.015）μm］、道邦组［（0.216 ± 0.025）μm］、EVE组［（0.315 ± 0.017）μm］、松风组［（0.375 ± 0.030）μm］、砂石组［（0.379 ± 0.017）μm］;砂石组、松风组、EVE组Ra值均明显大于对照组（均P < 0.05）,而3M组、道邦组与对照组之间的差异无统计学意义（P > 0.05）。结论　5种抛光方法均能有效改善玻璃陶瓷表面粗糙度,不同抛光方法对IPS e.max Press玻璃陶瓷的抛光效果有一定的差异,以3M Sof-LexTM抛光套装抛光效果较佳。     

不同抛光处理对粘结托槽的瓷表面粗糙度影响的体外研究

目的：探讨不同抛光处理方法对烤瓷表面粘结的托槽去除后,瓷表面抛光后粗糙度的影响。方法：采用不同方法粘结托槽：A组（氢氟酸＋陶瓷偶联剂＋釉质粘结剂）;B组（氢氟酸＋釉质粘结剂）;C组（陶瓷偶联剂＋釉质粘结剂）。烤瓷片表面不同方法粘结托槽经剪切去除后,测定瓷面采用不同步骤抛光处理前后及对照组的瓷片表面粗糙度值。结果：抛光前A、B组间差异无统计学意义（P＞0．05）,C组小于A、B组,差异有统计学意义（P＜0．05）;抛光过程中各组间差异无统计学意义（P＞0．05）;各组抛光前后比较差异有统计学意义（P＜0．01）;抛光后各组间比较差异无统计学意义（P＞0．05）,都达到了对照组水平（P＞0．05）。结论：机械打磨、氢氟酸、陶瓷偶联剂对瓷表面粗糙度的影响依次递减,抛光套装依序抛光对降低表面粗糙度行之有效,抛光后能使托槽去除后瓷表面粗糙度达到对照组水平。     

不同抛光工具对CEREC Blocs陶瓷抛光效果的比较研究

目的 比较临床常用的几种玻璃陶瓷抛光工具对CEREC Blocs陶瓷的抛光效果,为临床抛光工具的选择提供依据。方法 制作60个陶瓷试件,随机分为6组（n=10）,进行不同的表面处理。G组：釉膏上釉;SF组：使用松风Porcelain Adjustment Kit+CeraMaster 组合抛光;3M组：使用3M Sof-Lex^TMDiscs套装抛光;Tob组：使用道邦玻璃陶瓷套装抛光;EVE组：使用EVE DIAPRO套装抛光;Ivo组：使用义获嘉伟瓦登特OptraFine^®套装抛光。测量各组试件表面粗糙度值Ra、Rz并作统计分析,通过扫描电子显微镜（SEM）观测试件并对其表面形态作定性分析。结果 G、3M、SF、Ivo、EVE、Tob组的抛光后Ra值分别为（0.069±0.008）、（0.073±0.009）、（0.223±0.025）、（0.229±0.022）、（0.491±0.093）、（0.763±0.067）µm,经统计学分析,Ra值从小到大依次为G和3M组P>0.05）,其余各组间差异均有统计学意义（P<0.05）。Rz值统计结果与Ra值一致。SEM观察结果与粗糙度值的统计结果一致。结论 不同抛光工具对CEREC Blocs陶瓷的抛光效果不同,本实验条件下,Sof-Lex^TM Discs套装抛光表面最光滑,效果近似釉膏上釉。     

表面离子交换处理对热压铸造陶瓷的硬度和断裂韧性影响的实验研究

目的研究陶瓷表面离子交换处理对热压铸瓷硬度和断裂韧性的影响。方法热压铸造圆形铸造陶瓷试件40个,分为4组,每组10个,放入人工唾液中浸泡1个月。抛光组试件仅打磨、抛光;上釉组试件打磨、抛光后放入烤瓷炉内上釉;离子交换组试件打磨、抛光后上釉,再置于硝酸钾离子交换剂中加热,室温冷却;对照组不作处理。测量计算试件的硬度值和断裂韧性值,并进行统计学分析。结果离子交换组与对照组的硬度值和断裂韧性值差异有统计学意义(P<0.01),抛光组和上釉组与对照组比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论离子交换处理方法可以提高热压铸造陶瓷的硬度和断裂韧性。     

3种抛光方法对6种复合树脂的抛光效果比较

目的：比较3种抛光方法对6种常用的复合树脂的抛光效果。方法：6种树脂分别为Venus、Solitaire 2、Te-Econom、Charisma、Composan LCM和Swiss TEC。使用统一的模具制作试件,每种树脂制作15个,随机分成3组,分别用松风Composite Polishing Kit CA0310、松风super-snap抛光系统、金刚砂抛光钻修形后再用橡皮杯蘸抛光膏抛光。使用表面粗糙度测量仪测试抛光面的表面粗糙度。结果：Composite Polishing Kit抛光组和super-snap系统抛光组的Ra、Rz和Ry值统计学上没有显著差异,平均Ra值都小于0.2μm;金刚砂抛光钻修形后再用橡皮杯蘸抛光膏抛光后的表面最粗糙,平均Ra值在0.442-0.548μm之间。所有6种树脂使用Composite PolishingKit和super-snap系统抛光后的表面粗糙度Ra、Rz和Ry值统计学上没有显著差异。结论：松风Composite Polis-hing Kit CA0310和松风super-snap抛光系统都可以获得理想的抛光效果。临床上常用的金刚砂钻修形后再用橡皮杯蘸抛光膏抛光的方法不够理想。本研究中的6种树脂具有近似的抛光性能。     

三种抛光套装对氧化锆全瓷冠抛光效果比较研究

目的　比较临床常用的3种抛光套装对氧化锆全瓷冠的抛光效果。方法　使用绿色砂石打磨大小相同的圆柱状氧化锆试件45块,随机均分为5组,分别命名如下。SHOFU组：采用Procelain Adjustment Kit PN0301抛光试件;EVE组：采用Rotary Grinding and Polishing Instruments HP321抛光试件;Kerr组：采用Occlubrush抛光刷抛光试件;上釉组：试件表面进行上釉处理;对照组：试件不做处理。测量各组试件表面粗糙度Ra值,在扫描电子显微镜（scanning electron microscope,SEM）下观察试件表面形貌。将牙龈卟啉单胞菌与上述试件混合培养,测定其表面细菌黏附量,并在SEM下观察细菌的黏附情况。结果　各组试件表面粗糙度Ra值及细菌黏附量总的比较,差异具有统计学意义（均P < 0.05）。SHOFU组、EVE组、Kerr组试件表面粗糙度Ra值和细菌黏附量均依次增大,且组间比较差异均有统计学意义（均P < 0.05）。SEM观察显示,SHOFU组、EVE组试件表面见浅细划痕;Kerr组、对照组试件表面见深划痕和密集的凹坑缺陷;上釉组试件表面光滑。细菌在SHOFU组、EVE组、Kerr组、对照组试件表面主要分布在划痕及缺陷周围,其中SHOFU组和EVE组细菌数量较少,Kerr组和对照组数量最多;细菌在上釉组试件表面散在分布,数量最少。结论　3种抛光套装中,Procelain Adjustment Kit PN0301的抛光效果最好。     

不同抛光系统对金属烤瓷及复合树脂表面抛光的效果比较

目的:对比常见抛光系统对金属烤瓷及复合树脂表面的抛光效果,为口腔医师在临床工作中选择抛光系统提供参考.方法:按照常规技工操作制作镍铬合金烤瓷试片(2×4×6mm)36个,复合树脂试片(2×4×6mm)36个,共72个.用水砂纸逐级打磨表面到1000目后,将每种试片随机分成6组,每组6个.其中4组分别用四种抛光系统(DIAPOL,EAK,OptraFine,OptraFine+抛光膏)进行表面抛光处理,另两组分别为表面未抛光的空白对照和表面上釉的标准对照.用激光扫描粗糙度仪测量试片抛光前后及上釉后的表面粗糙度(Ra,μm),使用SPSS统计软件对各组粗糙度均值之间的差异进行单因素方差分析(one-way ANOVA,LSD)(α=0.05).并使用扫描电镜观察试片抛光前后及上釉后的表面形态.结果:所有试片经抛光后,表面粗糙度均有明显降低,但依然高于上釉组.金属烤瓷试片和复合树脂试片的未处理组、DIAPOL抛光组、EAK抛光组、OptraFine抛光组、OptraFine+抛光膏组、及上釉组的表面粗糙度(Ra)分别为0.687,0.497,0.378,0.262,0.207,0.170 μm及0.692,0.352,0.230,0.248,0.0783,0.0667μm.不同抛光系统抛光后的表面粗糙度间差异有统计学意义.结论:使用抛光系统抛光能显著降低金属烤瓷和复合树脂的表面粗糙度,但其表面光滑程度依然低于上釉后.OptraFine和抛光膏的联合使用对金属烤瓷和复合树脂表面的抛光效果优于其它抛光系统.     

烤瓷表面抛光和上釉对其表面粗糙度及细菌黏附的影响

目的比较不同抛光方法对烤瓷表面粗糙度的影响,以及不同粗糙度烤瓷表面对口腔变异链球菌黏附的影响。方法采用原子力显微镜测量不同抛光方法对瓷表面粗糙度的影响,并通过细菌实验观察不同粗糙度的瓷表面对细菌黏附的影响。结果用抛光膏抛光或者上釉后,瓷面平整且有光泽。无论是表面粗糙度还是表面黏附的细菌数,橡皮轮组都大于抛光膏组和上釉组（P<0.05）。结论建议调改过的瓷表面进行抛光膏抛光或上釉以恢复瓷表面的光滑度和减少口腔致龋菌的黏附。     

抛光和自上釉对陶瓷表面平滑度的影响

目的：比较研究抛光和自上釉这两种不同的陶瓷表面处理方法，对陶瓷表面平滑度产生的影响。方法：分别以SEM和粗糙度测试仪，对抛光组和自上釉组的试件表面进行定量测试分析。试件的制作及处理均按照临床所用的常规方法。结果：SEM观察表明抛光组的平滑度与自上釉相似。经粗糙度测试仪测得的Ra值，抛光组为0.412μm，自上釉组为0．417μg。两者比较未见显著性差异（P＞0．05），且SEM的检查与Ra值的测定具有一致性。结论：采用抛光处理可以获得与自上釉相同平滑度的陶瓷表面。     

氢氟酸质量分数对二硅酸锂玻璃陶瓷表面形貌及树脂粘接的影响

目的 探讨不同质量分数的氢氟酸对二硅酸锂玻璃陶瓷表面形貌及树脂粘接耐久性的影响。方法 制备大小为11 mm×13 mm×2 mm的二硅酸锂玻璃陶瓷片试件72个,经烧结、研磨、清洗后,随机分为3组,每组24个,分别接受质量分数为32%的磷酸、4%的氢氟酸、9.5%的氢氟酸处理20 s,形成酸蚀后试件。每组随机选出4个陶瓷片,1个使用扫描电子显微镜观察陶瓷表面形态,另外3个用表面粗糙度仪测量陶瓷片表面粗糙度参数（Ra、Rz和Rmax）。陶瓷片表面接受硅烷偶联剂/树脂粘接剂/树脂水门汀处理,并与直径3 mm的复合树脂柱粘接形成粘接试件。将每组20个粘接试件分为两组,10个试件直接进行剪切实验,10个试件经20 000次冷热循环后进行剪切实验。结果 氢氟酸处理组试件表面粗糙度参数值均显著高于磷酸处理组;9.5%氢氟酸组除Ra以外的参数值均高于4%氢氟酸组（P<0.05）。冷热循环明显降低了所有实验组的粘接强度（P<0.05）。冷热循环前后,氢氟酸处理组的粘接强度均高于磷酸处理组;尽管4%氢氟酸组的粘接强度高于9.5%氢氟酸组,但9.5%氢氟酸组在冷热循环过程中的粘接强度降低幅度要明显低于4%氢氟酸组（P<0.05）。结论 氢氟酸的质量分数对陶瓷表面形态及与树脂的粘接耐久性有明显影响,9.5%氢氟酸能更有效地保持二硅酸锂玻璃陶瓷的树脂粘接强度。     

渗透技术及抛光对人工早期釉质龋表面粗糙度的影响

目的：研究早期釉质龋形成后,渗透树脂治疗后不同抛光处理对其表面粗糙度的影响,为临床治疗中选择合适的抛光系统提供参考。方法：制取牛下切牙唇面样本54个,随机分为6组,设健康釉质组、早期釉质龋组,其余4组先用部分饱和酸缓冲系统形成早期釉质龋,然后进行渗透树脂治疗,根据抛光与否和抛光工具种类(橡皮杯、抛光碟、矽粒子)进行分组。采用表面粗糙度轮廓仪PGI800测量各组样本的表面粗糙度,表面粗糙度参数取轮廓算术平均偏差(Ra)和轮廓最大高度(Rz)。采用SPSS17.0软件包对数据进行统计学分析。结果：早期釉质龋组较健康釉质组表面粗糙度均值略大,但无显著差异(P>0.05);早期釉质龋渗透树脂治疗后,不抛光组表面粗糙度显著高于早期釉质龋组(P<0.05);渗透树脂治疗后,3种不同工具抛光组之间两两比较,表面粗糙度无显著差异(P>0.05);各抛光组较未抛光组表面粗糙度均减小,差异显著(P<0.05);各抛光组与早期釉质龋组相比,表面粗糙度均无显著差异(P>0.05)。结论：早期龋进行渗透树脂治疗后,表面粗糙度明显升高,需要进行抛光处理,使用橡皮杯和粒度较小的抛光碟抛光,是较有效的表面处理方法。     

Finishing and polishing of a hybrid composite and a heat-pressed glass ceramic

This study assessed the finishing and polishing of a hybrid composite and a glass-ceramic. Ninety Tetric specimens were divided into three groups of 30 specimens and finished with three different finishing procedures. The 30 specimens were subsequently subdivided into six groups of five and polished using the following polishing systems: Sof-Lex disks, the Ceramiste kit, a diamond polisher, Diafix-oral, the MPS gel and the Politip system. Seventy-five IPS-Empress specimens were divided into groups of 25 and finished with three different procedures. The 25 specimens were then subdivided into five groups of five and polished with the same systems, except for the Politip technique. The polished surfaces were evaluated quantitatively by laser stylus profilometry with respect to Ra and profile-length-ratio (LR). Qualitative assessment was carried out by SEM. Quantitative results were examined statistically by one- and two-way Anova and LSD test with significance level of 0.05. The lowest roughness on composite specimens was achieved by the MPS gel and Diafix after finishing according to FM 3 and FM 2. With respect to all methods used, there were no significant differences among the five methods with the lowest Ra-values.The ceramic specimens were able to be polished to lower roughness values (p<0.001 for LR). The best results on ceramic surfaces were achieved with the MPS system after finishing according to FM 3 and FM 2. There were no significant differences among the three methods with the lowest Ra-values and the glazed surface. SEM evaluation largely confirmed the quantitative results. Composite specimens exhibited signs of selective resin matrix removal when the Ceramiste system or the Politip system were used.     

Effect of different finishing and polishing techniques on the surface roughness of microfilled, hybrid and packable composite resins

This study examined the average surface roughness (Ra, microm) of 2 microfilled (Durafill and Perfection), 1 hybrid (Filtek Z250) and 2 packable composite resins (Surefil and Fill Magic), before (baseline) and after eight different finishing and polishing treatments. The surface roughness was assessed using a profilometer. Ten specimens of each composite resin were randomly subjected to one of the following finishing/polishing techniques: A -- carbide burs; B -- fine/extrafine diamond burs; C -- Sof-Lex aluminum oxide discs; D -- Super-Snap aluminum oxide discs; E -- rubber polishing points + fine/extrafine polishing pastes; F -- diamond burs + rubber polishing points + fine/extrafine polishing pastes; G -- diamond burs + Sof-Lex system; H -- diamond burs + Super-Snap system. Data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey's HSD test. Significant differences (p<0.05) were detected among both the resins and the finishing/polishing techniques. For all resins, the use of diamond burs resulted in the greatest surface roughness (Ra: 0.69 to 1.44 microm). The lowest Ra means were obtained for the specimens treated with Sof-Lex discs (Ra: 0.11 to 0.25 microm). The Ra values of Durafill were lower than those of Perfection and Filtek Z250, and these in turn had lower Ra than the packable composite resins. Overall, the smoothest surfaces were obtained with the use the complete sequence of Sof-Lex discs. In areas that could not be reached by the aluminum oxide discs, the carbide burs and the association between rubber points and polishing pastes produced satisfactory surface smoothness for the packable and hybrid composite resins, respectively.     

Surface conditioning methods and polishing techniques effect on surface roughness of a feldspar ceramic

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of three surface conditioning methods on shear bond strength (SBS) and on surface roughness (Ra) of a feldspathic ceramic, and to compare the efficiency of three polishing techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 106 feldspathic specimens were used. Thirty specimens were divided into three groups according to the surface conditioning methods: air-particle abrasion (APA) with 25-microm aluminum trioxide (Al(2)O(3)) (group A); hydrofluoric acid (HFA) (group H); APA and HFA (group AH). Metal brackets were bonded and subjected to SBS testing. Sixty-three specimens were divided into three groups according to the surface conditioning method. Ra was evaluated profilometrically. Then, each group was divided into three subgroups according to the polishing technique, ie, adjustment kit, diamond polishing paste, adjustment kit + diamond polishing paste. Following polishing, the second Ra values were obtained. RESULTS: The lowest SBS was obtained for group H. This value was significantly different from the values of groups A and AH (P < .05). The lowest Ra value was observed for group H (P < .001). There was no significant difference between groups A and AH (P > .05). No significant differences between the subgroups in which a polishing paste was used were observed (P > .05). There was no significant difference between the adjustment kit and the adjustment kit + a diamond polishing paste (P > .05). CONCLUSION: APA or APA + HFA created rougher porcelain surfaces than HFA alone. Both adjustment kit use and the adjustment kit + polishing paste application were effective to smooth the porcelain, but one was not found superior to the other.     

The effects of porcelain polishing systems on the color and surface texture of feldspathic porcelain

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: After the adjustment of glazed porcelain surfaces, the surfaces are roughened and must be reglazed or polished with different porcelain polishing systems to improve the esthetic appearance and strength of the porcelain restorations. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the effect of different porcelain polishing methods on the color and surface texture of a feldspathic ceramic. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ninety porcelain (Vitadur Alpha) discs (10 x 2 mm) were fabricated in a silicone mold and divided into 9 groups (n=10). A medium-grit diamond rotary cutting instrument was used to remove the glaze layer, and then the surface was polished using 1 of the 4 following polishing systems or a combination thereof: polishing paste (Ultra II), polishing stick (Diamond Stick), polishing wheel (CeraMaster), or an adjustment kit (Porcelain Adjustment Kit). No surface treatments were applied to the control group. Color measurements were made using a colorimeter (Minolta CR-321 ChromaMeter) according to the CIE L( *)a( *)b( *) color system. Color differences (DeltaE) between the control group and experimental groups were calculated. The acceptable level was chosen as 3.3 DeltaE units. Then the surface roughness (Ra) (microm) of the same specimens was evaluated using a profilometer. The data were statistically analyzed by 1-way analysis of variance and Tukey HSD tests (alpha=.05). To evaluate the effects of the polishing systems on the ceramic surfaces at a microscopic level, an additional 9 feldspathic ceramic specimens were prepared and polished to represent each of the 9 groups. These specimens were examined under a scanning electron microscope (SEM). RESULTS: Polishing techniques significantly affected the color of the feldspathic ceramic (P<.001). The DeltaE values ranged from 1.03 to 3.36. No significant differences were found within the adjustment kit groups or within the polishing wheel groups. All specimens polished with the various techniques showed significantly different Ra values than the control specimens (P<.001), except for the groups polished using the adjustment kit. The highest Ra and DeltaE values were obtained with the use of polishing paste and polishing stick alone (P<.001). The SEM observations demonstrated that the polishing techniques affected the smoothness of the porcelain surface. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluation of the polishing techniques showed that the use of an adjustment kit alone or preceding polishing paste or polishing stick application created surfaces as smooth as glazed specimens. The use of polishing paste alone did not improve the smoothness of the porcelain surface. The color differences of all groups were found to be at the acceptable level.     

Comparative effects of tungsten,diamond burs and laser for residual adhesive removal after orthodontic debonding on flexural strength,surface roughness and phase transformation of high-translucent zirconia: An in vitro study

ObjectivesInformation regarding the effects of orthodontic bracket debonding on zirconia restorations, and the preferred method for residual adhesive removal from the zirconia restoration surface is lacking. Thus, this study aimed to assess the effects of different methods of residual adhesive removal after orthodontic bracket debonding on flexural strength, surface roughness, and phase transformation of high-translucent (HT) zirconia.Materials and methodsThis in vitro study evaluated 72 bar-shaped HT zirconia specimens; 18 specimens were assigned to the control group. Metal brackets were bonded to the remaining specimens by resin cement. After bracket debonding, the residual adhesive on the surface of specimens was removed by three methods (n = 18): a 30-flute tungsten-carbide (TC) bur at low speed, an ultrafine diamond bur at high speed, and Er:YAG laser irradiation. The surface roughness (Ra and Rz) was measured. X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis was carried out, and the flexural strength was measured as well. Data were statistically analyzed (α = 0.05).ResultsBefore polishing, all methods increased the Ra and Rz values (P < 0.05) except for the diamond bur yielding a Rz value comparable to that of the control group. The Ra values of the test groups were comparable after polishing, and still higher than that of the control group (P < 0.05). The flexural strength of all three test groups was comparable (P > 0.05), and significantly lower than that of the control group (P < 0.001). The monoclinic phase was not observed in any group.ConclusionsOrthodontic bracket debonding adversely affects the surface roughness and flexural strength of zirconia despite polishing.     

Effect of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface roughness of new tooth-coloured restoratives

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of various finishing and polishing procedures on the surface roughness of three new tooth-coloured restorative materials. The materials included a hybrid composite resin (Filtek Z250), a packable composite resin (Filtek P60), and an ormocer (organically modified ceramic) (Definite). Thirty-two specimens of each material were prepared and randomly divided into four finishing and polishing groups (n = 8): (i) diamond bur/silicone polishers, (ii) diamond bur/Sof-Lex discs, (iii) carbide bur/silicone polishers, (iv) carbide bur/Sof-Lex discs. Average surface roughness (Ra) in micrometers was measured with a Mitutoyo Surftest-402 Surface Roughness Tester and the data compared using anova, at P < or = 0.05. Surface topography was also assessed using the scanning electron microscope (s.e.m) from samples of each group. The Mylar strip produced the smoothest surface and finishing/polishing procedures; (ii) and (iv) were significantly smoother than (i) and (iii). The lowest variability in initial surface roughness between materials was also observed with ormocer group.     

Three-dimensional surface profile analysis of different types of flowable restorative resins following different finishing protocols

AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate the surface roughness of different types of flowable restorative resins and compare the effectiveness of diamond finishing burs followed by aluminum oxide discs with aluminum oxide discs alone in producing smooth surfaces. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty-four specimens (10 mm X 2 mm) for each flowable resin (flowable microhybrid composite, flowable liquid microhybrid composite, flowable compomer, and flowable ormocer) were fabricated in an acrylic mold and randomly assigned to three groups. In group I samples were left undisturbed after the removal of a Mylar strip (control). In group II samples were polished with diamond finishing burs, followed by aluminum oxide discs. In group III samples were finished with only aluminum oxide discs. The mean surface roughness (Ra, microm) was determined with 3-D non-contact interferometry. Data were subjected to one way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and post hoc comparison was accomplished using Tukey's HSD. RESULTS: Although significant differences in surface roughness (Ra) values were observed among the materials using a Mylar strip (control), no significant differences between restorative materials were found when all finishing/polishing methods were combined. For all flowable restorative resins tested, the Mylar strip produced surfaces smoother than those produced by a diamond finishing bur followed by a disc or by using discs alone. Surface roughness values were statistically similar for a diamond finishing bur followed by a disc and for disc treated surfaces within each material except for Dyract Flow, a flowable compomer. CONCLUSION: Although the surface roughness of flowable restorative resins differs among the types, this difference can be overcome with different finishing/polishing methods.