Alessandro Geminiani1, Tamer Abdel-Azim2, Carlo Ercoli3, Changyong Feng4, Luiz Meirelles5, Domenico Massironi6. 1. Assistant Professor, Division of Prosthodontics, Eastman Institute for Oral Health, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY. Electronic address: geminiani@me.com. 2. Assistant Professor, Division of Prosthodontics, University of Louisville, Louisville, Ky. 3. Professor and Chair, Division of Prosthodontics, Eastman Institute for Oral Health, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY. 4. Associate Professor, Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY. 5. Assistant Professor, Division of Prosthodontics, Eastman Institute for Oral Health, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY. 6. Private practice, Milan, Italy.
Abstract
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM: Rotary and nonrotary cutting instruments are used to produce specific characteristics on the axial and marginal surfaces of teeth being prepared for fixed restorations. Oscillating instruments have been suggested for tooth preparation, but no comparative surface roughness data are available. PURPOSE: To compare the surface roughness of simulated tooth preparations produced by oscillating instruments versus rotary cutting instruments with turbine and electric handpieces. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Different grit rotary cutting instruments were used to prepare Macor specimens (n=36) with 2 handpieces. The surface roughness obtained with rotary cutting instruments was compared with that produced by oscillating cutting instruments. The instruments used were as follows: coarse, then fine-grit rotary cutting instruments with a turbine (group CFT) or an electric handpiece (group CFE); coarse, then medium-grit rotary cutting instruments with a turbine (group CMT) or an electric handpiece (group CME); coarse-grit rotary cutting instruments with a turbine handpiece and oscillating instruments at a low-power (group CSL) or high-power setting (group CSH). A custom testing apparatus was used to test all instruments. The average roughness was measured for each specimen with a 3-dimensional optical surface profiler and compared with 1-way ANOVA and the Tukey honestly significant difference post hoc test for multiple comparisons (α=.05). RESULTS: Oscillating cutting instruments produced surface roughness values similar to those produced by similar grit rotary cutting instruments with a turbine handpiece. The electric handpiece produced smoother surfaces than the turbine regardless of rotary cutting instrument grit. CONCLUSION: Rotary cutting instruments with electric handpieces produced the smoothest surface, whereas the same instruments used with a turbine and oscillating instruments achieved similar surface roughness.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM: Rotary and nonrotary cutting instruments are used to produce specific characteristics on the axial and marginal surfaces of teeth being prepared for fixed restorations. Oscillating instruments have been suggested for tooth preparation, but no comparative surface roughness data are available. PURPOSE: To compare the surface roughness of simulated tooth preparations produced by oscillating instruments versus rotary cutting instruments with turbine and electric handpieces. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Different grit rotary cutting instruments were used to prepare Macor specimens (n=36) with 2 handpieces. The surface roughness obtained with rotary cutting instruments was compared with that produced by oscillating cutting instruments. The instruments used were as follows: coarse, then fine-grit rotary cutting instruments with a turbine (group CFT) or an electric handpiece (group CFE); coarse, then medium-grit rotary cutting instruments with a turbine (group CMT) or an electric handpiece (group CME); coarse-grit rotary cutting instruments with a turbine handpiece and oscillating instruments at a low-power (group CSL) or high-power setting (group CSH). A custom testing apparatus was used to test all instruments. The average roughness was measured for each specimen with a 3-dimensional optical surface profiler and compared with 1-way ANOVA and the Tukey honestly significant difference post hoc test for multiple comparisons (α=.05). RESULTS: Oscillating cutting instruments produced surface roughness values similar to those produced by similar grit rotary cutting instruments with a turbine handpiece. The electric handpiece produced smoother surfaces than the turbine regardless of rotary cutting instrument grit. CONCLUSION: Rotary cutting instruments with electric handpieces produced the smoothest surface, whereas the same instruments used with a turbine and oscillating instruments achieved similar surface roughness.