Jan Mueller1, Fan Yang, Konrad Neumann, Andrej M Kielbassa. 1. Department of operative Dentistry and Periodontology, University School of Denatl Medicine, CharitéCentrum 3, Charité-Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of materials and finishing procedures on the surface roughness of infiltrated subsurface bovine enamel lesions. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Eighty enamel specimens were prepared from 80 bovine incisors and partially varnished (control). The nonvarnished areas were demineralized (pH 4.95, 28 days) and etched with phosphoric acid gel (20%, 5 seconds). Specimens were randomly divided into two groups, which were each split into four subgroups (each n = 10): E1/E2 (Excite, Ivoclar Vivadent), F1/F2 (Fortify, Bisco), G1/G2 (Glaze and Bond, DMG), and I1/I2 (Icon, DMG). In group 1, resin materials were polymerized and polished using finishing strips by means of a polishing device; in group 2, excess material was removed with a rubber cup before polymerization (without polishing). The surface roughness (Sa) of control, demineralized, and treated surfaces were evaluated topometrically using a focus variation 3D scanning microscope. RESULTS: Demineralized surfaces were significantly rougher than sound enamel (P < .0005, t test). Etching increased Sa significantly to more than 450% of demineralization values (P < .0005). Surfaces of nonpolished infiltrated lesions were significantly rougher than demineralized enamel (P < .0005), while no significant differences could be found among infiltrated subgroups (P = .067), nor between polished and nonpolished groups (P = .359). Application of Glaze and Bond (G2) appeared to reduce Sa values of etched lesions (P < .0005), while with all other subgroups Sa values improved only marginally. CONCLUSION: Regarding surface roughness, the use of finishing strips after infiltration of subsurface lesions does not seem to be advantageous. Excess material should be removed before light curing, but surface quality of nonprocessed infiltrants seems to be perfectible.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of materials and finishing procedures on the surface roughness of infiltrated subsurface bovine enamel lesions. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Eighty enamel specimens were prepared from 80 bovine incisors and partially varnished (control). The nonvarnished areas were demineralized (pH 4.95, 28 days) and etched with phosphoric acid gel (20%, 5 seconds). Specimens were randomly divided into two groups, which were each split into four subgroups (each n = 10): E1/E2 (Excite, Ivoclar Vivadent), F1/F2 (Fortify, Bisco), G1/G2 (Glaze and Bond, DMG), and I1/I2 (Icon, DMG). In group 1, resin materials were polymerized and polished using finishing strips by means of a polishing device; in group 2, excess material was removed with a rubber cup before polymerization (without polishing). The surface roughness (Sa) of control, demineralized, and treated surfaces were evaluated topometrically using a focus variation 3D scanning microscope. RESULTS: Demineralized surfaces were significantly rougher than sound enamel (P < .0005, t test). Etching increased Sa significantly to more than 450% of demineralization values (P < .0005). Surfaces of nonpolished infiltrated lesions were significantly rougher than demineralized enamel (P < .0005), while no significant differences could be found among infiltrated subgroups (P = .067), nor between polished and nonpolished groups (P = .359). Application of Glaze and Bond (G2) appeared to reduce Sa values of etched lesions (P < .0005), while with all other subgroups Sa values improved only marginally. CONCLUSION: Regarding surface roughness, the use of finishing strips after infiltration of subsurface lesions does not seem to be advantageous. Excess material should be removed before light curing, but surface quality of nonprocessed infiltrants seems to be perfectible.
Authors: Andrej M Kielbassa; Ina Ulrich; Rita Schmidl; Christoph Schüller; Wilhelm Frank; Vanessa D Werth Journal: Int J Oral Sci Date: 2017-06-16 Impact factor: 6.344