Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

Title abbreviation: Adv Clin Exp Med
5-Year IF – 2.0, IF – 1.9, JCI (2024) – 0.43
Scopus CiteScore – 4.3
Q1 in SJR 2024, SJR score – 0.598, H-index: 49 (SJR)
ICV – 161.00; MNiSW – 70 pts
Initial editorial assessment and first decision within 24 h

ISSN 1899–5276 (print), ISSN 2451-2680 (online)
Periodicity – monthly

Download original text (EN)

Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

2015, vol. 24, nr 5, September-October, p. 881–890

doi: 10.17219/acem/23971

Publication type: original article

Language: English

Download citation:

  • BIBTEX (JabRef, Mendeley)
  • RIS (Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero)

The Effect of Finishing and Polishing Techniques on the Surface Roughness and the Color of Nanocomposite Resin Restorative Materials

Aysun Avsar1,A,C,F, Emir Yuzbasioglu2,A,B,C,D,E,F, Duygu Sarac3,D,E,F

1 Department of Pedodontics, Ondokuz Mayis University Faculty of Dentistry, Turkey

2 Department of Prosthodontics, Istanbul Medipol University School of Dentistry, Turkey

3 Department of Prosthodontics, Ondokuz Mayıs University, Faculty of Dentistry, Turkey

Abstract

Background. Rough, poorly polished surfaces contribute to staining, plaque accumulation, gingival irritation and recurrent caries. Finishing and polishing techniques are critical factors contributing to the longevity of the direct composite resin restorations.
Objectives. The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effects of finishing and polishing systems on surface roughness of six nanocomposite restorative resins.
Material and Methods. Thirty specimens of each restorative material (n = 180) were placed in a teflon mould (6 mm in diameter and 3 mm in depth) and cured with a LED curing unit. Six specimens from each of restorative material were randomly assigned to four groups for finishing and polishing (carbide burs, diamond burs, aluminium oxide discs, silicon rubber polisher) techniques. Mylar strip formed specimens were served as control group. After finishing and polishing procedures surface roughness was evaluated by a profilometer. The data was analyzed by 2-way analysis of variance and the Tukey HSD test (α = 0.05).
Results. Significant differences were found between the groups in terms roughness (p < 0.001). The control group and aluminium oxide discs group had the lowest Ra values and were significantly different from other groups (p < 0.001). The roughest surface was obtained with diamond burs followed by silicon rubbers and carbide burs. Overall, the smoothest surfaces were obtained with the use the complete sequence of aluminum oxide discs.
Conclusion. In areas that could not be reached by the aluminum oxide discs, the carbide burs produced satisfactory surface smoothness for the nanocomposite restorative materials. Although mylar matrix strip formed surfaces presents lower surface roughness values, recountouring and polishing of resin restorations are often required in clinical situations. Aluminium oxide discs and carbide finishing burs are suitable for finishing and polishing procedures for nanocomposite restorative resins.

Key words

surface roughness, color difference, nanocomposite resins, polishing techniques

References (45)

  1. Baseren M: Surface roughness of nanofill and nanohybrid composite resin and ormocer-based tooth-colored restorative materials after several finishing and polishing procedures. J Biomater Appl 2004, 19, 121–134.
  2. Bayne SC, Heymann HO, Swift EJ: Update on dental composite restorations. J Am Dental Assoc 1994, 125, 687–701.
  3. Berastegui E, Canalda C, Brau E, Miquel C: Surface roughness of finished composite resins. J Prosthet Dent 1992, 68, 742–749.
  4. Beun S, Glorieux T, Devaux J, Vreven J, Leloup G: Characterization of nanofilled compared to universal and microfilled composite. Dent Mater 2005, 23, 51–59.
  5. Borges AB, Marsillo AL, Pagani C, Rodrigues JR: Surface roughness of packable composite resins polished with various systems. J Esthet Restor Dent 2004, 16, 42–47.
  6. Bouvier D, Duprez JP, Lissac M: Comparative evaluation of polishing systems on the surface of three aesthetic materials. J Oral Rehabil 1997, 24, 888–894.
  7. Chandler HH, Bowen RL, Poffenbarger GC: Method for finishing composite restorative materials. J Am Dental Assoc 1971, 83, 344–347.
  8. Chen RC, Chan DC, Chan KC: A quantitative study of finishing and polishing techniques for a composite. J Prosthet Dent 1988, 59, 292–297.
  9. Chung KH: Effects of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface texture of resin composites. Dent Mater 1994, 10, 325–330.
  10. Douglas RD, Brewer JD: Variability of porcelain color reproduction by commercial laboratories. J Prosthet Dent 2003, 90, 339–346.
  11. Dunkin RT, Chambers DW: Gingival response to class V composite resin restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 1983, 106, 482–484.
  12. Eide R, Tveit AB: Finishing and polishing glass–ionomer cements. Acta Odont Scand 1990, 48, 409–413.
  13. Ferracane JL, Condon JR, Mitchem JC: Evaluation of subsurface defects created during the finishing of composites. J Dent Res 1992, 71, 1628–1632.
  14. Filho AN, D’Azevedo MTFS, Nagem HD, Marsola FP: Surface roughness of composite resin after finishing and polishing. Braz Dent J 2003, 14, 37–41.
  15. Gross MD, Moser JB: A colorimetric study of coffee and tea staining of four composite resins. J Oral Rehabil 1977, 4, 311–322.
  16. Hoelscher DC, Neme AM, Pink FE, Hughes PJ: The effect of three finishing systems on four esthetic restorative materials. Oper Dent 1998, 23, 36–42.
  17. Hondrum SO, Fernandez R Jr: Contouring, finishing, and polishing Class 5 restorative materials. Oper Dent 1997, 22, 30–36.
  18. Jefferies SR: The art and science of abrasive finishing and polishing in restorative dentistry. Dent Clin North Am 1998, 42, 613–627.
  19. Jefferies SR, Barkmeier WW, Gwinnett AJ: Three composite finishing systems: a multisite in vitro evaluation. J Esthet Dent 1992, 4, 181–185.
  20. Johnston WM, Kao EC: Assessments of appearance match by visual observation and clinical colorimetry. J Dent Res 1989, 68, 819–822.
  21. Jung M: Surface roughness and cutting efficiency of composite finishing instruments. Oper Dent 1977, 22, 98–104.
  22. Kim HS, Um CM: Color differences between resin composites and shade guides. Quintessence Int 1996, 27, 559–567.
  23. Lee YK, Lim BS, Kim CW: Effect of surface conditions on the color of dental resin composites. J Biomed Mater Res 2002, 63, 657–666.
  24. Lutz F, Phillips RW: A classification and evaluation of composite resin systems. J Prosthet Dent 1983, 50, 480–488.
  25. Mitra SB, Wu D, Holmes BN: An application of nanotechnology in advanced dental materials. J Am Dent Assoc 2003, 134, 1382–1390.
  26. Obregon A, Goodkind RJ, Schwabacher WB: Effects of opaque and porcelain surface texture on the color of ceramometal restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1981, 46, 330–340.
  27. O’Brien WJ, Boenke KM, Groh CL: Coverage errors of two shade guides. Int J Prosthodont 1991, 4, 45–50.
  28. Ozgünaltay G, Yazici AR, Görücü J: Effect of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface roughness of new tooth-coloured restoratives. J Oral Rehabil 2003, 30, 218–224.
  29. Quirynen M, Bollen CM, Papaioannou W, Van Eldere J, van Steenberghe D: The influence of titanium abutment surface roughness on plaque accumulation and gingivitis: short term observations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996, 11, 169–178.
  30. Ragain JC, Johnston MW: Color acceptance of direct dental restorative materials by human observers. Color Res Appl 2000, 25, 278–285.
  31. Reis AF, Giannini M, Lovadino JR, Dias CTDS: The effect of six polishing systems on the surface roughness of two packable resin-based composites. Am J Dent 2002, 15, 193–197.
  32. Roeder LB, Powers JM: Surface roughness of resin composite prepared by single-use and multi-use diamonds. Am J Dent 2004, 17, 109–112.
  33. Roeder LB, Tate WH, Powers JM: Effect of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface roughness of packable composites. Oper Dent 2000, 25, 534–543.
  34. Ryba TM, Dun NWJ, Murchison DF: Surface roughness of various packable composites. Oper Dent 2002, 27, 243–247.
  35. Seghi RR, Hewlett ER, Kim J: Visual and instrumental colorimetric assessments of small color differences on translucent dental porcelain. J Dent Res 1989, 68, 1760–1764.
  36. Shintani H, Satou N,Yukihiro A,Satou J,Yamane I,Kouzati T,Andou T, Kai M, Hayashihira H, Inoue T: Water sorption, solubility and staining properties of microfilled resins polished by various methods. Dent Mater J 1985, 4, 54–62.
  37. Stober T, Gilde H, Lenz P: Color stability of highly filled composite resin materials for facings. Dent Mater 2001, 17, 87–94.
  38. Tate WH, Powers JM: Surface roughness of composites and hybrid ionomers. Oper Dent 1996, 21, 53–58.
  39. Van Dijken JW, Ruyter IE: Surface characteristics of posterior composites after polishing and toothbrushing. Acta Odont Scand 1984, 45, 337–346.
  40. Venhoven BAM, de Gee AJ, Werner A, Davidson CL: Influence of filler parameters on the mechanical coherence of dental restorative resin composites. Biomaterials 1996, 17, 735–740.
  41. Weinstein AR: Anterior composite resins and veneers: treatment planning, preparation, and finishing. J Am Dent Assoc 1988, 117, 38–45.
  42. Weitman RT, Eames WB: Plaque accumulation on composite surfaces after various finishing procedures. J Am Dent Assoc 1975, 91, 101–106.
  43. Yap AU, Mok BYY: Surface finish of a new hybrid esthetic restorative material. Oper Dent 2002, 27, 161–166.
  44. Yap AUJ, Lye KW, Sau CW: Surface characteristics of tooth-colored restoratives polished utilizing different polishing systems. Oper Dent 1997, 22, 260–265.
  45. Yap AUJ, Yap SH, Teo CK, Ng JJ: Finishing/Polishing of Composite and Compomer Restoratives: Effectiveness of One-step Systems. Oper Dent 2004, 29, 275–279.
© Wroclaw Medical University