Haifa M Barakah1, Nadia M Taher2. 1. Lecturer, Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Electronic address: haifabarakah343@hotmail.com. 2. Professor, Consultant, Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Different polishing systems vary in their effect on reducing surface roughness and stain susceptibility of dental composite resin materials. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of 3 polishing systems on the stain susceptibility and surface roughness of 2 nanocomposite resins and a microhybrid composite resin. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty-five disks (2×10 mm) each were fabricated of 2 nanocomposite resins (Filtek Supreme XT and Tetric EvoCeram) and 1 microhybrid composite resin (Z250). Both sides of the disks were wet finished, and 1 side was polished with PoGo, Astropol, or Hi-Shine (n=5). Unpolished surfaces served as controls. The average roughness (Ra, μm) was measured with a profilometer, and the baseline color was recorded with a spectrophotometer. All specimens were incubated while soaking in a staining solution of coffee, green tea, and berry juice for 3 weeks. The color was recorded again, and the data were analyzed with 2-way ANOVA at α=.05 and Tukey multiple comparison tests. RESULTS: All polishing systems improved the staining resistance of Filtek Supreme XT and Z250 but did not affect that of Tetric EvoCeram. The surface color of Filtek Supreme XT was changed significantly and was the smoothest after polishing with PoGo, whereas Hi-Shine produced significantly rougher surfaces but with the lowest color change. Hi-Shine produced the highest color change in Z250. The surface roughness did not differ significantly between the other polishing systems. Tetric EvoCeram showed no significant differences in color change or surface roughness. CONCLUSIONS: Staining susceptibility and surface roughness depend mainly on material composition and on the polishing procedures. Polishing improves the staining resistance of composite resins. Nanocomposite resins did not exhibit better staining resistance or surface roughness than microhybrid composite resin.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Different polishing systems vary in their effect on reducing surface roughness and stain susceptibility of dental composite resin materials. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of 3 polishing systems on the stain susceptibility and surface roughness of 2 nanocomposite resins and a microhybrid composite resin. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty-five disks (2×10 mm) each were fabricated of 2 nanocomposite resins (Filtek Supreme XT and Tetric EvoCeram) and 1 microhybrid composite resin (Z250). Both sides of the disks were wet finished, and 1 side was polished with PoGo, Astropol, or Hi-Shine (n=5). Unpolished surfaces served as controls. The average roughness (Ra, μm) was measured with a profilometer, and the baseline color was recorded with a spectrophotometer. All specimens were incubated while soaking in a staining solution of coffee, green tea, and berry juice for 3 weeks. The color was recorded again, and the data were analyzed with 2-way ANOVA at α=.05 and Tukey multiple comparison tests. RESULTS: All polishing systems improved the staining resistance of Filtek Supreme XT and Z250 but did not affect that of Tetric EvoCeram. The surface color of Filtek Supreme XT was changed significantly and was the smoothest after polishing with PoGo, whereas Hi-Shine produced significantly rougher surfaces but with the lowest color change. Hi-Shine produced the highest color change in Z250. The surface roughness did not differ significantly between the other polishing systems. Tetric EvoCeram showed no significant differences in color change or surface roughness. CONCLUSIONS: Staining susceptibility and surface roughness depend mainly on material composition and on the polishing procedures. Polishing improves the staining resistance of composite resins. Nanocomposite resins did not exhibit better staining resistance or surface roughness than microhybrid composite resin.
Authors: Giovanna Gisella Ramírez-Vargas; Julia Elbia Medina Y Mendoza; Ana Sixtina Aliaga-Mariñas; Marysela Irene Ladera-Castañeda; Luis Adolfo Cervantes-Ganoza; César Félix Cayo-Rojas Journal: J Int Soc Prev Community Dent Date: 2021-04-15
Authors: Filipa Freitas; Teresa Pinheiro de Melo; António Hs Delgado; Paulo Monteiro; João Rua; Luís Proença; Jorge Caldeira; Ana Mano Azul; José João Mendes Journal: J Funct Biomater Date: 2020-12-22
Authors: Carlos A Jurado; Clarisa Amarillas-Gastelum; Kelvin I Afrashtehfar; Liliana Argueta-Figueroa; Nicholas G Fischer; Abdulrahman Alshabib Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2022-08-05 Impact factor: 3.748