Comparison of reduced-step vs multiple-step composite polishing systems on composite surface propert

Page 1

1DCT 1Specialty

The Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

1a, Asmaa 2ain 2StRDennis 3Professor in Restorative Dentistry, in Restorative Dentistry,Al-Taie Dental Materials Leeds Thomas , David Wood a3a

Dental Institute

Dentist in Restorative Dentistry, 2 Lecturer / StR in Restorative Dentistry, 3Professor in Dental Materials a Leeds Dental Institute /School of Dentistry, University of Leeds.

Thomas Dennis 1a, Asmaa Al-taie 2a, David Wood 3a .

Introduction

Nano- lled and nano-hybrid resin composites allow a high surface polish to be gained and retained after placement. Decreased surface roughness prevents plaque and stain retention, improves aesthetics and increases the wear resistance of the restoration. A mean surface roughness (Ra) below 0.2μm is regarded as an acceptable standard for a restoration. Although conventional polishing systems provide acceptable surface properties, they are time consuming to perform. In more recent times single and reduced-step polishing regimes have been introduced with claims of similar/superior outcomes. Type to enter text

Method

Three composites were used to create 2mm x 10mm cylindrical samples (n=150) [ISO Standard 4049]. Samples were nished with 1200 grit silicon carbide paper and then randomly assigned to the polishing groups outlined below (n=30). Each sample was polished for 30 seconds per step by a single operator. White light pro lometry was used to assess mean surface roughness (Ra). Surface gloss testing was performed with a small area 60° glossmeter. Representative samples from each group were analysed using a Scanning Electron Microscope. 1:1 macro photo analysis was performed with a DSLR camera.

Results & Discussion

Sof-Lex XT, Prisma cup and DiaPolisher paste 3M

Polishe e Kenda

5 Steps 150 secs Control

2 steps 60 secs P1

DIATECH ShapeGuard Coltene

Op 1step Kerr

2 steps 60 secs P2

1 step 30 secs P3

OneGloss Shofu

1 step 30 secs P4

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Filler par cle Size (μm)

Filler Volume

Nano-hybrid composite

0.004-0.1

58.4%

Essen a®

Micro lled hybrid composite

0.016-10

65%

BRILLIANT EverglowTM

Nano-hybrid composite

0.02-1.5

56%

Resin Composite

Composite type

FiltekTM Universal Restora ve

Qualitative Analysis

Surface Gloss (Gu)

P2

P4

Increased Lustre

C

C 1

Untitled 1

P1 2

P2 3

P3 4

P4 5

Mean Surface Roughness (μm ) 0.30 Decreased Roughness

0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00

1

Untitled 1

C

2

P1

3

P2

4

P3

P4

P2

5

P4

ff

fi

fi

fi

fi

ff

ff

ti

fi

ti

tt

fi

fi

ti

Signi cant di erences were seen between the groups’ surface roughness (p<0.05). P4 > P3 > C > P1 > P2. The lowest surface roughness was (0.08 Ra) was seen with a 2 step system (P2) on Everglow composite, both created by the same manufacturer. Polishing with P4 resulted in highest surface roughness to an unacceptable clinical standard (p<0.05). P1 and P2 resulted in highest gloss in all composite groups (p<0.05). The highest gloss values were obtained when Everglow composite was polished with P1 (96.70 GU) and P2 (90.68). We noted a negative correlation between surface gloss and roughness r = 0.7 (p<0.05). SEM analysis reinforced our quantitive ndings with homogenous nishes seen in well performing protocols and deep grooving, ller pull-out and scratches noted with P4. Photographic analysis showed evident di erences in the perceived shade and optical properties of the composite surfaces polished with di erent protocols. The null hypothesis was rejected as some reduced-step polishing systems can equal and indeed out perform the control multi-step system tested. ti

fi

Comparison of reduced-step vs multiple-step composite polishing systems on composite surface properties: an in-vitro study.


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.
Comparison of reduced-step vs multiple-step composite polishing systems on composite surface propert by COLTENE Marketing - Issuu