PURPOSE: To evaluate the roughness and color change of a conventional acrylic resin and a bis-acryl resin, submitted to different types of polishing and exposed to a staining solution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred specimens were manufactured from an autopolymerizing conventional acrylic resin (Duralay, shade 66) (n = 50) and a bis-acryl resin (Protemp 4, shade A3) (n = 50) according to the manufacturers' instructions. Specimens were subdivided into 10 groups (n = 10), according to the type of resin and polishing method, including no-polishing (control groups for acrylic resin [tungsten bur finishing] and bis-acryl resin [cotton and alcohol]), Enhance System, Edenta kit, Labordental kit, and sandpaper. The specimens were immersed in a staining solution (coffee at 60°C) for 7 days. Surface roughness was evaluated before the first immersion (baseline - Ra1) and after 7 days (Ra2). The color change (∆E) was determined after 24 hours (∆E1) and 7 days (∆E2), by CIE L* a* b* scale. Data were statistically analyzed with 3-way ANOVA for repeated measures test and Tukey test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: According to 3-way ANOVA test, material, polishing techniques, and polishing*material factors exhibited statistically significant influence (p < 0.0001) on the roughness, and, for color change, material, polishing techniques, time, polishing*material, and material*time factors were statistically significant (p < 0.0001). The polishing techniques successfully reduced the surface roughness of acrylic resin groups, when compared to control (p < 0.001), but for bis-acryl resin, results were not different from the control group (Enhance: p = 0.954, Edenta: p = 0.866, sandpaper: p = 0.366, Labordental: p = 0.945). Surface roughness was not affected by the immersion in staining solution for 7 days. Color change of acrylic resin groups after 24 hours and 7 days of immersion exhibited a clinically acceptable value (ΔE < 3.7) with the exception of the Enhance group, and all bis-acryl resin groups exhibited a clinically unacceptable color change value (ΔE > 3.7) independent of polishing technique and time interval (∆E1 and ∆E2). CONCLUSIONS: Roughness of both materials was similar when the polishing techniques studied were performed, although Ra values were superior to the clinically acceptable values (0.20 µm), and were not affected by the immersion protocol studied; however, when esthetics are critical, the selection of material type is more important than the surface treatment technique used, and bis-acryl resin was more susceptible to clinically unacceptable color change after immersion in a staining solution.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the roughness and color change of a conventional acrylic resin and a bis-acryl resin, submitted to different types of polishing and exposed to a staining solution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred specimens were manufactured from an autopolymerizing conventional acrylic resin (Duralay, shade 66) (n = 50) and a bis-acryl resin (Protemp 4, shade A3) (n = 50) according to the manufacturers' instructions. Specimens were subdivided into 10 groups (n = 10), according to the type of resin and polishing method, including no-polishing (control groups for acrylic resin [tungsten bur finishing] and bis-acryl resin [cotton and alcohol]), Enhance System, Edenta kit, Labordental kit, and sandpaper. The specimens were immersed in a staining solution (coffee at 60°C) for 7 days. Surface roughness was evaluated before the first immersion (baseline - Ra1) and after 7 days (Ra2). The color change (∆E) was determined after 24 hours (∆E1) and 7 days (∆E2), by CIE L* a* b* scale. Data were statistically analyzed with 3-way ANOVA for repeated measures test and Tukey test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: According to 3-way ANOVA test, material, polishing techniques, and polishing*material factors exhibited statistically significant influence (p < 0.0001) on the roughness, and, for color change, material, polishing techniques, time, polishing*material, and material*time factors were statistically significant (p < 0.0001). The polishing techniques successfully reduced the surface roughness of acrylic resin groups, when compared to control (p < 0.001), but for bis-acryl resin, results were not different from the control group (Enhance: p = 0.954, Edenta: p = 0.866, sandpaper: p = 0.366, Labordental: p = 0.945). Surface roughness was not affected by the immersion in staining solution for 7 days. Color change of acrylic resin groups after 24 hours and 7 days of immersion exhibited a clinically acceptable value (ΔE < 3.7) with the exception of the Enhance group, and all bis-acryl resin groups exhibited a clinically unacceptable color change value (ΔE > 3.7) independent of polishing technique and time interval (∆E1 and ∆E2). CONCLUSIONS: Roughness of both materials was similar when the polishing techniques studied were performed, although Ra values were superior to the clinically acceptable values (0.20 µm), and were not affected by the immersion protocol studied; however, when esthetics are critical, the selection of material type is more important than the surface treatment technique used, and bis-acryl resin was more susceptible to clinically unacceptable color change after immersion in a staining solution.
Authors: Marco Antônio Lavorato de Almeida; André Ulisses Dantas Batista; Maria Rejane Cruz de Araújo; Vanessa Fabiana Dei Santi de Almeida; Paulo Rogério Ferreti Bonan; Danielle Nóbrega Alves; Tereza Karla Vieira Lopes da Costa; Diego Figueiredo Nóbrega; Ricardo Dias de Castro Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2020-08-17 Impact factor: 2.757