抛光过程中复合树脂表面粗糙和光泽度的变化

目的探讨抛光过程中复合树脂表面粗糙度和光泽度的变化规律。方法测定９种复合树脂抛光前的压接面及经过２４０目、３２０目、４００目、６００目、８００目、１２００目金刚砂纸抛光后抛光面的粗糙度值和光泽度值。结果随着由粗至细逐级抛光,粗糙度值稳步下降,至８００目时均恢复至抛光前的程度;而光泽度值在６００目以前变化甚微,８００目时骤然回升,至１２００目时有５种树脂已达到或超过抛光前的水平。结论复合树脂必须抛光至一定精细程度,才能获得理想的滑泽表面。     

抛光对三种复合树脂表面粗糙度影响的实验研究

目的：采用临床上常用的3种充填用光固化复合树脂进行抛光后对比研究,为临床医师选择适当的牙体充填材料提供指导。方法：选择3种临床常用的前后牙通用光固化型复合树脂（Filtek Z250,Spectrum TPH,CHARISMA）,均用Sof-lex抛光系统修整、抛光,扫描电镜观察抛光前和抛光后的表面形态,并用表面粗糙度仪测定其粗糙度,对检测结果进行统计学分析。结果：3种复合树脂经同一种抛光系统处理后粗糙度值均增大,不同复合树脂之间的两两比较显示存在显著性差异;Filtek Z250组表面粗糙度值（Surface Roughness,Ra）无论抛光前后,均较其他两种树脂的Ra值小。结论：用Sof-lex抛光系统修整、抛光,Filtek Z250在三种复合树脂中有较/最佳的抛光性能。     

三种抛光系统对不同光固化复合树脂表面粗糙度影响的实验研究

目的：采用临床上常用的3种充填用光固化复合树脂,经过3种不同抛光系统处理后,观测其表面粗糙度的变化。方法：选择3种临床常用的前后牙通用光固化型复合树脂（FiltekZ250,SpectrumTPH,CHARISMA）,分别用3种抛光系统（sof—lex,Enhance,Super—Snap）修整、抛光,应用表面粗糙度仪测定其粗糙度,扫描电镜观察抛光后的表面形貌,然后对检测结果进行统计学分析。结果：3种复合树脂经不同抛光系统处理后,两因素析因设计方差分析检验树脂材料和抛光系统之间的相互关系,结果显示,二者之间具有交互作用。用Sof—lex处理FiltekZ250树脂可获得最低的Ra值,但Super-snap抛光套装处理各种复合树脂组间无显著差异,均能达到较低的粗糙度值。结论：（1）临床上常用的3种光固化复合树脂材料中,FiltekZ250与SpectrumTPH、CHARISMA相比有更好的抛光性能,可形成比较平整光滑的表面;（2）不同抛光系统和不同树脂之间存在交互作用,Sof-lex和Super—snap最适宜处理FiltekZ250树脂,抛光后的表面光滑;Super-snap抛光系统对3种不同复合树脂进行处理后,均能达到较低的粗糙度值,明显优于其它2种抛光系统。     

3种抛光系统对光固化复合树脂表面粗糙度影响的实验研究

目的:研究不同抛光处理对光固化复合树脂表面粗糙度的影响,为临床选择合适的抛光系统提供参考.方法:选择Filtek Z250复合树脂制作30个样本试件,随机分为3组,分别用3种不同的抛光系统(Sof-lex,Enhance,Super-Snap)处理,扫描电镜观察抛光前后的表面形态,表面粗糙度仪测定其粗糙度.结果:不同抛光系统处理Filtek Z250复合树脂试件后,单因素方差分析比较3组表面粗糙度Ra值的总体均数间差异,显示有统计学意义(P<0.05);SNK检验对各抛光系统组进行两两比较,Sof-lex和Super-Snap两组之间无明显差异,但二者与Enhance组比较存在显著性差异(P<0.05).结论:在本实验条件下,对于Filtek Z250复合树脂的抛光处理,3种抛光系统中Sof-lex和Super-Snap处理后表面粗糙度值较低,抛光效果优于En-hance抛光系统.     

牙科陶瓷调磨后不同的抛光上釉方法对其表面性状的影响

目的牙科陶瓷调磨后比较不同的抛光上釉方式其表面的光泽度。方法 用V intage瓷粉制作盘状试件24个,均匀调磨后按不同的处理方式随机分成四组,以粗糙度测试仪测量各组的粗糙度值并进行统计学分析,体视显微镜和电子显微镜观察试件表面形貌。结果抛光和上釉表面粗糙度值无显著性差异（P〉0.05）;镜下观察四组试件表面结构及光滑度无明显差别。结论牙科陶瓷调磨后抛光可以达到与自身上釉相近似的效果。     

不同抛光方法对三种复合树脂抛光效果的比较

目的：确定合理有效的复合树脂抛光方法,为临床操作提供实验依据。方法：通过测定Palfique,Z350,Charisma三种复合树脂试件的表面粗糙度和光泽度,对6种抛光方法进行评价。结果：（1）Sof-Lexdiscs抛光碟的抛光效果优于Composite polishing kitCA0310;SuperBuff Set水溶性抛光轮能更好的满足临床修复要求。（2）电镜：Charisma、Palfique、Z350三种树脂经Composite polishing kitCA0310打磨套装处理后,表面都留下了较明显的波浪状划痕,Sof-Lexdiscs抛光碟打磨后的表面划痕减少;配合使用SuperBuff Set水溶性抛光轮后,三种树脂试件划痕明显减少,表面趋于光滑。结论：复合树脂修复后,配合使用精细抛光能更好的提高修复体表面滑泽度。     

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.     

抛光材料的粒度对复合树脂表面粗糙度及润湿性的影响

目的：比较抛光材料的粒度对3种复合树脂粗糙度及表面润湿性的影响。方法选择3种复合树脂材料,分别为Filtek Z100（A组）,Charisma（B组）和Clearfil AP-X（C组）,采用不同粒度的抛光材料（Sof-LexTM Extra Thin抛光彩碟）,随机分组抛光,然后,检测表面粗糙度（Ra）及接触角,并进行统计学分析。结果随抛光彩碟粒度减小,3种材料的Ra值均逐渐减小,精细粒度抛光组的接触角显著低于3个较粗粒度抛光组（P〈0.05）;3种材料在相同抛光材料粒度处理后,Ra显著不同（P〈0.05）：A组＜B组＜C组,同时,A组的接触角明显高于B组和C组（P〈0.05）。结论复合树脂的表面粗糙度及润湿性与材料种类和抛光材料的粒度相关。     

纳米陶瓷与传统牙科陶瓷抛光性能的对比研究

目的：比较纳米陶瓷IMAGINE REFLEX与传统牙科陶瓷的抛光性能。方法：抛光过程中以粗糙度测试仪分别测试纳米陶瓷（IMAGINE REFLEX）和传统牙科陶瓷（VITA VMK 95）试件表面经240目，400目，600目，800目．1000目，1200目，1500目碳化硅水砂纸每级抛光后的粗糙度值并进行统计学分析。扫描电镜（SEM）观察试件表面形貌。结果：经相同目数砂纸抛光后，纳米陶瓷的粗糙度值显著低于传统陶瓷（P〈0．05）；纳米陶瓷在经400目、800目砂纸抛光后分别与传统陶瓷在经800目、1500目砂纸抛光后粗糙度值比较无显著性差异（P〉0．05）；SEM测试结果显示纳米陶瓷表面抛光后更为光滑规则，孔隙少而小。随着抛光粒度的逐级精细，两组瓷样本的表面粗糙度值稳步下降，在240目到800目阶段下降趋势明显，800目到1500目阶段下降趋势变缓；结论：纳米陶瓷IMAGINE REFLEX较传统牙科陶瓷Vita VMK95具有更好的抛光性能；在临床瓷修复体抛光时，抛光粒度越精细，越能获得理想的滑泽表面。     

不同抛光器械对复合树脂表面粗糙度的影响

目的:研究不同抛光方法对树脂表面粗糙度的影响。方法:6种树脂Filtek Z350、Filtek P60、Ceram-X mono、Quixfil、Synergy Duo Shade、Synergy compact分别制成共120个树脂块(5 mm×4 mm),分别使用Sof-Lex抛光碟(S)、PoGo抛光杯(PG)、Brilliant Golss抛光杯(BG)抛光。原子力显微镜测表面粗糙度参数RMS,并行统计学分析。结果:干法抛光时,S+Synergy Duo Shade的RMS值最小;PG+Quixfil值最大。对同一树脂使用不同抛光方法,RMS差异无显著性(P>0.05),组间两两比较示Ceram-X的抛光效果S优于PG(P<0.05)。相同方法抛光不同树脂,纳米型与混合型树脂抛光效果优于可压型复合树脂。PG抛光Quxifil和Ceram-X,BG抛光Synergy Duo Shade时干法优于湿法(P<0.05)。结论:对同一树脂使用不同的抛光方法,其表面粗糙度无显著差异。相同抛光方法,可压型复合树脂的RMS高于其他。部分树脂干法抛光效果优于湿法。     

抛光与上釉对牙科纳米陶瓷表面粗糙度的影响

目的比较抛光与上釉对纳米陶瓷表面粗糙度的影响。方法用纳米陶瓷粉(IMAGINEREFLEX)制备盘状试件40个,随机分为A、B两组。A组抛光组用240#~1500#碳化硅砂纸依次逐级打磨,最后用金刚砂抛光膏完成抛光。B组上釉组重新表面上釉。以粗糙度测试仪测试两组试件表面分别经抛光和表面上釉后表面粗糙度值并进行统计学分析,扫描电镜观察和评估样本表面形貌。结果纳米陶瓷IMAGENEREFLEX抛光组和上釉组表面粗糙度值无显著性差异(P>0.05);扫描电镜结果显示抛光组和上釉组表面无明显差异,均较为光滑,抛光组表面散在少量细小孔隙。结论对于纳米陶瓷的表面处理,抛光可以获得和重新上釉相同的表面光滑度。     

3种抛光方法对树脂表面粗糙度影响的比较

目的通过定性与定量分析比较3种抛光方法对3种不同树脂表面粗糙度的影响。方法将3种不同类型的树脂制作成15个直径为5mm,厚度为3mm的圆柱本样本,随机分为3组：Sof—Lex抛光碟组．Brilliant Gloss橡皮抛光尖组,One Gloss橡皮抛光尖组。抛光后用轮廓测定仪在样本测试面中心区测表面粗糙度（Ra）,然后每个小组中随机选取1个样本,采用原子力显微镜观察其表面微观形貌。结果Sof-Lex、One Gloss抛光后,3种不同树脂的Ra均值差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）、单因素方差分析结果显示材料组之间、抛光方法组之间Ra均值差异均有统计学意义（P〈0．05）,且组内两两比较结果显示同种树脂3种抛光方法之间Ra均值差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）：多因素方差分析结果显示材料类型和抛光方法均会影响树脂表面粗糙度,二者具有明显交互作用（P〈0．01）原子力显微镜观察结果显示Sof-Lex和BrilliantGloss抛光后树脂表面相对均一,OneGloss抛光后树脂表面有划痕、空穴、填料颗粒突出等结构。结论3种树脂之间、3种不同抛光方法之间Ra均值差异均存在统计学患义,抛光效果具有材料依赖性。     

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.     

The effect of polishing techniques on the surface roughness and color change of composite resins

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Surface characteristics may affect the color change and surface roughness of composite resins. PURPOSE: This study evaluated the surface roughness and color change of a hybrid, a microhybrid, and a nanohybrid composite resin polished with the use of polishing discs, wheels, and a glaze material. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty discs (10 x 2 mm) were fabricated for each composite resin (nanohybrid, Grandio; microhybrid, Filtek Z250; hybrid, Quadrant Universal LC) for a total of 150 discs, prepared using polyester strips and divided into 5 groups of 10. One of the groups served as control (C) and had no surface treatment (n=10). The specimens of the experimental groups were ground with 1000-grit silicon carbide paper. In 4 experimental groups (n=10), specimen surfaces were polished with polishing discs (D) (Sof-Lex), with polishing wheels (W) (Astropol), with polishing discs preceding the glaze application (DG) (Biscover), or with polishing wheels preceding the glaze application (WG), respectively. Color was assessed using a small area colorimeter. The color differences (DeltaE) values between the specimens of Group C and the experimental groups were calculated, and the data were compared using 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) (alpha=.05). Subsequently, the surface roughness (Ra) of the specimens was evaluated using a profilometer, and the data were analyzed by 2-way ANOVA followed by a Tukey multiple comparisons test (alpha=.05). RESULTS: The polishing technique and type of composite resin significantly affected the Ra and DeltaE values of the composite resins (P<.001). While the use of polishing wheels produced the highest Ra values when compared to the other polishing techniques (P<.001), the nanohybrid composite resin showed the lowest Ra values compared to the other composite resins in the control groups (P<.001). All of the nanohybrid and microhybrid composite resin groups were found to be significantly different from each other in terms of color difference (P<.001). CONCLUSION: The highest Ra values were obtained with hybrid composite resins due to the size of the filler particles that were exposed after polishing. Although the smoothest surfaces were obtained with polyester strips, the use of glaze material after polishing discs or polishing wheels resulted in significantly lower Ra and DeltaE values than the use of the latter alone. The glaze appears to fill the structural microdefects and provide a more uniform, regular surface.     

The influence of one-step polishing systems on the surface roughness and microhardness of nanocomposites

OBJECTIVES: This in vitro study evaluated the surface roughness and microhardness of nanocomposites that contain nanoparticles and a microhybrid composite finished and polished with two different one-step polishing systems and a conventional multi-step polishing system. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The materials evaluated were Filtek Supreme XT, Grandio, Ceram X, Aelite Aesthetic Enamel, Tetric EvoCeram and Filtek Z250. A total of 240 specimens (10-mm in diameter, 2 mm thick) were fabricated for both tests (n=120 each test) in a plexiglass mold covered with a Mylar strip. After polymerization, five specimens per group received no polishing treatment and served as the control for both tests. For each composite group (n=15), the specimens were randomly divided into three polishing systems: PoGo, OptraPol and Sof-Lex. All polishing systems were applied according to the manufacturers' instructions after being ground wet with 1200 grid silicon carbide paper. The surface roughness values were determined using a profilometer. The microhardness measurements were performed using a digital microhardness tester (load 500 g; dwell time 15 seconds). The data were analyzed using the one-way ANOVA test at a significance level of 0.05 for both tests. Multiple comparison was performed with the Duncan Multiple Range test. RESULTS: The smoothest surfaces were achieved under Mylar strips in all composite groups (p<0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between polishing systems in the Filtek Supreme XT, Ceram X, Aelite Aesthetic Enamel and Grandio groups for surface roughness (p>0.05). In the Tetric EvoCeram group, Sof-Lex exhibited the highest roughness values. No statistically significant differences were evaluated between polishing systems (p>0.05); whereas, the surfaces under Mylar Strip showed statistically significant lower values than the polished surfaces in terms of microhardness (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: One-step polishing systems may be successfully used for polishing nanocomposites.     

Finishing and polishing of composite resins. The experimentally designed silicone cup hards and their polishing ability

To establish the most efficient polishing technique for composite resins, four kinds of silicone cup hards were experimentally designed, and the surface texture of two semihybrid composite resins polished with these experimental polishing tools were examined using a surface roughness recorder and by SEM. The individual silicone cup hard consisted of a hard rubber and silicone carbide abrasive particles being sized into #180 (P0), #360 (P2), #600 (P3), and #2500 (P4), respectively. Combination polishing with both P3 and P4, as well as from P0 through P4 in this order, efficiently created the smoothest surfaces for the semihybrid composite resins, which are generally considered to be hard to polish in the routine clinic.