Effectiveness of Reciprocal-Action Instrumentation for Polishing Composite Resin: An In Vitro Study

This in vitro study investigates the use of reciprocal-action instrumentation for polishing composite resin restorative materials. Electron photomicrographs were made of surfaces of a microfilled and a hybrid composite resin restorative material polished by various reciprocal-action polishing procedures, including several types of polishing pastes used with nonabrasive plastic tips. The best polish on the microfilled composite resin restorative material tested was produced by ending with 3-μ diamond polishing paste. The best polish on the hybrid composite resin restorative material tested was produced by ending with 0.5-μ diamond polishing paste. The surfaces produced were comparable to those produced by polishing discs.     

The effect of air polishing on contemporary esthetic restorative materials

Air polishing devices are designed primarily to remove soft deposits and stains from tooth surfaces. While improved strength and durability of esthetic restorative materials have resulted in increased usage, the effect of air polishing on these improved materials has not been determined. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of air polishing on contemporary esthetic restorative materials. Four materials were tested: ceramic, hybrid composite resin, microfilled composite resin, and glass ionomer cement. Ceramics and hybrid composites exhibited the least change in surface roughness, followed by microfilled composites. Glass ionomers showed the greatest change in surface roughness. Results from this study suggest the surface roughness of all of the materials tested increased after exposure to air polishing instrumentation. Practitioners utilizing air polishing devices for prophylaxis procedures should exercise caution in the area of esthetic restorations.     

Influence of finishing technique on microleakage

Four different finishing techniques were used in a dentin bonding agent/composite resin restoration to evaluate the possible influence of finishing technique on microleakage. Results indicated that finishing technique affects the ability of the restorative system to resist microleakage. Under the conditions of this study, best results were achieved with a 30-fluted bur followed by a short wet polish. Samples finished dry with polishing disks demonstrated considerable microleakage. This study also suggests that homogeneous nonagglomerated microfilled composite resin does not require disk finishing.     

The Influence of Finishing Technique on Microleakage

Four different finishing techniques were used in a dentin bonding agent/composite resin restoration to evaluate the possible influence of finishing technique on microleakage. Results indicated that finishing technique affects the ability of the restorative system to resist microleakage. Under the conditions of this study, best results were achieved with a 30-fluted bur followed by a short wet polish. Samples finished dry with polishing disks demonstrated considerable microleakage. This study also suggests that homogeneous nonagglomerated microfilled composite resin does not require disk finishing.     

Effect of prophylactic polishing protocols on the surface roughness of esthetic restorative materials

Many polishing protocols have been evaluated in vitro for their effect on the surface roughness of restorative materials. These results have been useful in establishing protocols for in vivo application. However, limited research has focused on the subsequent care and maintenance of esthetic restorations following their placement. This investigation evaluated the effect of five polishing protocols that could be implemented at recall on the surface roughness of five direct esthetic restorative materials. Specimens (n=25) measuring 8 mm diameter x 3 mm thick were fabricated in an acrylic mold using five light-cured resin-based materials (hybrid composite, microfilled composite, packable composite, compomer and resin-modified glass ionomer). After photopolymerization, all specimens were polished with Sof-Lex Disks to produce an initial (baseline) surface finish. All specimens were then polished with one of five prophylactic protocols (Butler medium paste, Butler coarse paste, OneGloss, SuperBuff or OneGloss & SuperBuff). The average surface roughness of each treated specimen was determined from three measurements with a profilometer (Surface 1). Next, all specimens were brushed 60,000 times at 1.5 Hz using a brush-head force of 2 N on a Manly V-8 cross-brushing machine in a 50:50 (w/w) slurry of toothpaste and water. The surface roughness of each specimen was measured after brushing (Surface 2) followed by re-polishing with one of five protocols, then final surface roughness values were determined (Surface 3). The data were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA. Significant differences (p=0.05) in surface roughness were observed among restorative materials and polishing protocols. The microfilled and hybrid resin composite yielded significantly rougher surfaces than the other three materials following tooth brushing. Prophylactic polishing protocols can be used to restore a smooth surface on resin-based esthetic restorative materials following simulated tooth brushing.     

The surface roughness of restorative materials and dental tissues after polishing with prophylaxis and polishing pastes

The effect of prophylaxis and polishing pastes on bovine tooth hard tissues and dental materials was investigated in vitro. Four restorative dental materials (gold, amalgam, a conventional composite, a microfilled composite), brought to a standard surface finish, and two bovine dental hard tissues (enamel, dentin) were polished with ten different prophylaxis and polishing pastes. Before polishing, SEM photographs were taken of all materials, and surface profiles were obtained of every sample. After polishing, surface profiles from every sample and SEM photographs of every material/paste combination were obtained. Using the same techniques, two-step polishing procedures were also investigated. The evaluation of the surface profiles and the rated SEM photographs (by 20 dentists) showed significant paste and material differences. There was a significant correlation (0.82) between the results of the surface profiles and the SEM ratings. Almost all pastes roughened the surfaces of dental restorative materials and only a few pastes showed a tendency to render the surfaces of dental restorative materials and only a few paste showed a tendency to render the surfaces of dental hard tissues smoother. Therefore, if polishing is indicated after periodontal treatment, the paste used should be selected carefully. Since the surface roughness of conventional composites increases tremendously during each polishing with pastes, their surfaces should be avoided when using polishing pastes. If polishing with a paste in indicated, conventional composites should be polished afterwards with aluminium silicate coated discs.     

EFFECTS OF POLISHING PROCEDURES ON COLOR STABILITY OF COMPOSITE RESINS

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of different polishing methods on color stability of posterior, universal and nanohybrid composite resin restorative materials upon exposure to a staining agent. Twenty-five specimens were prepared for each of 5 different composite resins (Filtek Z250, Filtek P60, Quadrant LC, Grandio and Filtek Supreme). Specimens were divided into 5 groups and different polishing procedures, including polishing discs (Pd), polishing discs then diamond polishing paste (PdP), polishing discs then a liquid polishing system (Biscover) (PdB), and combinations of these (PdPB) were used. Unpolished specimens served as the control (C). The specimens were stored for 48 h in a coffee solution. The color of all specimens was measured before and after exposure with a colorimeter, and total color change ∆E*) were calculated. The data were analyzed with a two-way ANOVA and the means were compared by Tukey HSD test (α=0.05). The lowest color difference was observed in the groups PdP and C, while the highest color difference was observed in PdPB, and PdB. When comparing the five different restorative materials, no significant difference was observed between FiltekP60 and FiltekZ250, and these materials demonstrated significantly less color change than Quadrant LC and the nanohybrid materials (Grandio, Filtek Supreme). The posterior (Filtek P60) and universal (Filtek Z250) composite resin restorative materials, which do not contain tetraethyleneglycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA), were found to be less stainable than the nanohybrid (Grandio, Filtek Supreme) and universal (Quadrant LC) composite resins, which contain TEGDMA. The use of diamond polishing paste after polishing with polishing discs significantly decreased staining when compared to the groups that used polishing discs alone, for all restorative materials tested. The highest color change values were obtained for the specimens that were polished with the Biscover liquid polish system (PdB and PdPB groups).     

Surface finish produced on resin composites by new polishing systems.

OBJECTIVE: There is a demand for more efficient and finer polishing of resin composite restorations. This study compared the use of some new systems, with new or reduced numbers of abrasive instruments, to polish representative resin composites. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Super-Snap Rainbow Technique Kit, Sof-Lex Pop-On System, and Enhance Finishing and Polishing System were used to prepare the surfaces of blocks of seven different hybrid or microfilled resin composites. For each system, three instruments were used for 30 seconds each in a standard manner. The average surface roughness of the polished surfaces was determined by profilometer. RESULTS: Visually, all surfaces were of clinically acceptable luster. By profilometer ranking, the Super-Snap Rainbow Kit produced the smoothest surfaces, followed by the Sof-Lex Pop-On System disks (which were not statistically different), and the Enhance System. CONCLUSION: The Super-Snap Rainbow Technique Kit and Sof-Lex Pop-On System provided the smoothest surfaces for all the composites tested. For several composites, the Enhance System provided less smooth surfaces, but these were also clinically acceptable.     

Resin composite polishing--filling the gaps.

OBJECTIVE: The search for the ideal polishing agent for resin composite materials is still ongoing. A new polishing brush with abrasive bristles for polishing resin-based restorations was tested to determine if it polishes restorations, including those with concave surfaces, macrostructured occlusal surfaces, and textured surfaces, without destroying their delicate texture or microstructure. METHOD AND MATERIALS: The polishing effectiveness and the ultimate destructive potential of these brushes were assessed quantitatively and subjectively in vitro. In addition, the durability of the brushes after repeated use and autoclaving was also evaluated. RESULTS: The brushes were nondestructive to resin-based restorative, enamel, dentin, and the restoration interface. They produced a shiny surface on resin-based restorative materials without destroying the surface texture. The abrasive brushes were autoclavable and demonstrated satisfactory durability, despite multiple heat sterilization cycles. CONCLUSION: These brushes can be considered to be key products to polish concave surfaces, anatomically shaped occlusal surfaces, and textured surfaces without damaging the surface characteristics.     

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.     

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 characteristics of posterior composites after polishing and toothbrushing

The surface characteristics of eight posterior and two anterior composite resins were studied by SEM and profilometric tracings. The materials included both chemically cured and light-cured resin systems. Two posterior materials were microfilled composites; the others were conventional or hybrid types. The anterior composites were of conventional and hybrid types. At various steps in the procedures the following polishing/brushing treatments were evaluated: 1) dry polishing with Sof-Iex discs followed by brushing with toothpaste; and 2) wet polishing with diamond pastes of increasing fineness, followed by brushing with toothpaste. The base line before the polishing/brushing procedures was obtained by wet polishing on silicon-carbide paper (4000 grit). All materials could be polished to a comparable smoothness by the Sof-lex discs, but this polishing procedure was associated with the development of an amorphous surface layer. Polishing with diamond pastes gave various results, with a 20-fold difference in surface roughness values from the smoothest to the roughest material. Toothbrushing after polishing with the Sof-lex system increased the surface roughness for all materials, but to various degrees. The two microfilled and four of the conventional posterior composites showed comparable surface roughness values, whereas two remaining posterior and the two anterior materials showed two to three times higher surface roughness values after toothbrushing. □ In vitro study; operative dentistry; profilometric investigation; scanning electron microscopy; surface roughness, composite resin     

Surface roughness of finished composite resins.

This study evaluated the results of polishing composite resin by using the following finishing and polishing techniques: Arkansas stone burs; eight-blade tungsten-carbide burs; diamond burs; aluminum-oxide disks; no polishing; and 12- and 30-blade tungsten-carbide burs. The results were compared to ascertain which technique delivers the smoothest surface. The study was done with 120 class V restorations on extracted human teeth distributed in two groups (I and II) of 60 restorations each. Group I teeth samples were filled with microfilled composite resin and Group II with a hybrid composite resin. Readings were made with a profilometer to evaluate the final polishing. The conclusions from the results of the study were that microfilled composite resins provided a better finish when treated with aluminum-oxide disks. These results were statistically significant (p < 0.001). When hybrid composites were used the control group recorded the lowest values.     

Surface characteristics of posterior composites after polishing and toothbrushing

The surface characteristics of eight posterior and two anterior composite resins were studied by SEM and profilometric tracings. The materials included both chemically cured and light-cured resin systems. Two posterior materials were microfilled composites; the others were conventional or hybrid types. The anterior composites were of conventional and hybrid types. At various steps in the procedures the following polishing/brushing treatments were evaluated: 1) dry polishing with Sof-lex discs followed by brushing with toothpaste; and 2) wet polishing with diamond pastes of increasing fineness, followed by brushing with toothpaste. The base line before the polishing/brushing procedures was obtained by wet polishing on silicon-carbide paper (4000 grit). All materials could be polished to a comparable smoothness by the Sof-lex discs, but this polishing procedure was associated with the development of an amorphous surface layer. Polishing with diamond pastes gave various results, with a 20-fold difference in surface roughness values from the smoothest to the roughest material. Toothbrushing after polishing with the Sof-lex system increased the surface roughness for all materials, but to various degrees. The two microfilled and four of the conventional posterior composites showed comparable surface roughness values, whereas two remaining posterior and the two anterior materials showed two to three times higher surface roughness values after toothbrushing.     

Effect of cyclical lateral forces on microleakage in cervical resin composite restorations.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the effect on microleakage of cyclic lateral fatigue forces in different types of cervical resin composite restorations. METHOD AND MATERIALS: V-notch cavities were prepared at the cementoenamel junction in 60 extracted human premolars and restored with a bonding system along with one of the following resin composites: hybrid resin composite, microfilled resin composite, and flowable resin composite (20 each). Ten specimens from each group of 20 were subjected to 8,400 cycles of lateral fatigue forces (44 N) at the occlusal half of the clinical crown in a machine specifically developed for this purpose. The other 10 specimens of each group served as controls, representing the microleakage that occurred without lateral fatigue forces. All specimens were stained with a 50% silver nitrate solution and sectioned sagittally. A scoring system of 0 to 6 was used to record the amount of die penetration along the restoration-tooth interface. RESULTS: There was leakage in both the fatigued specimens and the nonfatigued control specimens. There were significant differences in the mean values of microleakage for the restorative materials studied. In the nonfatigued groups, hybrid resin specimens exhibited significantly more microleakage at the dentin-resin interface than did microfilled or flowable resin specimens. In the fatigued groups, hybrid resin specimens exhibited significantly more leakage at the dentin-resin interface than did microfilled resin specimens. CONCLUSION: The least elastic resin composite tested, the hybrid material, generally showed the most leakage. This suggests that the elasticity of these resin composite restorative materials may be a factor in the amount of microleakage in cervical restorations.     

Surface roughness of resin composite prepared by single-use and multi-use diamonds

PURPOSE: To compare the surface roughness of a resin composite caused by two 30- and 40-microm, multi-use finishing diamonds with two 30- and 40-microm, single-use finishing diamonds of comparable grit size before and after steam sterilization. METHODS: Resin composite specimens 6 mm in diameter and 3 mm in depth were light cured. Surface roughness (Ra, microm) of surfaces formed by Mylar, after finishing with a bur, and after polishing with fine and superfine aluminum oxide disks was measured for the as-received and after sterilization conditions with a surface profilometer. RESULTS: Ra of Mylar surfaces (baseline) ranged from 0.02-0.05 microm. Ra of surfaces prepared with 30-microm diamond burs ranged from 1.42-1.90 microm. Ra of surfaces prepared with 40-microm diamond burs ranged from 2.22-2.42 microm. Ra of surfaces polished sequentially with fine and superfine aluminum oxide disks ranged from 0.07-0.11 microm in the as-received condition and from 0.12-0.14 microm in the sterilized condition. Sterilization and reuse of all types of diamond finishing burs resulted in equal or rougher resin composite surfaces after final polish when compared to final polish surfaces that were initially finished with as-received diamonds. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Surface roughness of a resin composite prepared with single- and multi-use diamond finishing burs was equivalent when compared at the final polish.     

Effect of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface roughness of packable composites

This study examined the average surface roughness (Ra, micron) of three packable composites and one hybrid composite cured against mylar, before and after treatment with a fine finishing diamond bur, a resin finisher followed by fine and extrafine polishing paste, two silicone-based finishing and polishing systems, fine and super-fine aluminum-oxide polishing disks, a silicon carbide-impregnated polishing brush and a surface-penetrating composite sealant. Additionally, the Ra was examined for one of the packable composites before and after treatment with a finishing carbide, prior to the finishing and polishing procedures detailed above. The finishing diamond significantly increased the Ra for all composites (ALERT, SureFil, Solitaire and Z-100). The finishing carbide used with SureFil (SureFil + C) also increased the Ra; however, it also produced surfaces up to 3.5x smoother when compared to SureFil surfaces finished with the diamond. Overall, Sof-Lex Contouring and Polishing Discs were able to produce the smoothest surfaces, followed by the Jiffy Composite Polishing Cups, the Enhance Composite Finishing & Polishing System/Prisma-Gloss Composite Polishing Paste, the Diacomp Intra-Oral Composite Polishers and the Jiffy Composite Polishing Brushes, respectively. The smoothest surfaces were produced using Z-100, followed by SureFil + C (carbide finishing bur), Solitaire, SureFil and ALERT, respectively. In general, Protect-It Composite Surface Sealant had little effect on the Ra, except with ALERT, where a slight increase in Ra was observed.     

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.     

两种喷砂粉对四种修复材料表面的影响

目的比较两种喷砂粉对口腔内四种修复材料表面的影响,为临床应用提供参考。方法用两种喷砂粉（Prophypeads粉和Prophylaxispowder粉）分别喷四种修复材料（光固化玻璃离子、纳米树脂、镍铬合金,金属烤瓷）表面,扫描电镜下观察磨耗情况。结果磨耗从重到轻依次是光固化玻璃离子、纳米树脂、镍铬合金,喷砂时间越长磨耗越严重,金属烤瓷未见明显磨耗;同样时间内Prophypearls粉造成的磨耗比Prophylaxispowder粉严重。结论用喷砂去色素和软垢时,最好避过玻璃离子和纳米树脂表面;在镍铬合金表面也不要对同一部位长时间喷砂,尤其当选用Prophypearls粉喷砂时应特别注意。     

Effects of a paste-free prophylaxis polishing cup and various prophylaxis polishing pastes on tooth enamel and restorative materials

The application of cleaning and polishing agents to a patient's dentition is a routine part of many dental practices. This study measured the surface roughness and surface gloss of tooth enamel, composite resin, and dental porcelain restorative materials when exposed to a paste-free prophylaxis polishing cup as well as a conventional prophylaxis polishing paste. Samples of human tooth enamel, a composite resin restorative material, and dental porcelain were prepared by a series of polishing papers to produce a flat smooth surface. The baseline average surface roughness (Ra) was measured using a contact stylus profilometer, and the surface gloss was measured with a glossmeter. The test samples were subjected to a standardized polishing routine using a paste-free prophylaxis polishing cup and a fine- or coarse-particle prophylaxis paste. Post-treatment surface roughness and gloss measurements were compared using a paired t statistical test. The conventional prophylaxis pastes increased surface roughness and decreased the gloss of the composite resin and tooth enamel test groups. The paste-free cups did not significantly affect the surface roughness of the enamel or the restorative materials. Dental porcelain surface roughness essentially was not affected by the application of paste-free cups and the fine and coarse pastes.