Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the surface roughness achieved by different finishing/polishing systems on two composite resins for direct use after thermic treatment. The specimens (n = 40 per group (G); G1 = Filtek™ P60; G2 = Fill Magic®) were set up on a matrix of stainless steel with circular internal niches (Ø = 10.0 mm; h = 2.0 mm). Next, they were subjected to thermal treatment in a heated chamber at 170 °C for 10 minutes. They were then divided randomly into four subgroups (Sg) to receive the surface treatment according to the finishing/polishing systems tested (n = 10): Sg A: Control; Sg B: Diamond® felt disc + Diamond Excel® diamond paste; Sg C: Sof-Lex® discs; and Sg D: Enhance™ silicon tips. The mean roughness (Ra) was determined using a digital surface roughnes tester. Data was analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc test (α = 0.05). Differences between the surface treatments were found on both resins (p < 0.05). In G1, the lowest mean Ra values were observed using Sg C (0.07 μm) and the highest for Sg D (0.12 μm) (p < 0.05). There was no difference between Sg B (0.08 μm) and Sg C (0.07 μm) (p = 0.076). In G2, there was a progressive increase in mean Ra values from Sg D (0.05 μm) to Sg C (0.06 μm) and to Sg B (0.07 μm) (p < 0.05). It was concluded that the finishing/polishing systems modified Ra on both resins.
Highlights
Since the increasing value placed on esthetic facial harmony, cosmetic dentistry has evolved to make it possible to perform direct restorations that are esthetically more desirable and cavity preparations that preserve tooth structures
Considering that there is little information about the effects of heat treatment on composite resins for direct use, the aim of this study was to compare the influence of different finishing/polishing systems on the surface of two commercial heat treated composite resins
Two-way ANOVA showed that the means (Ra) obtained from the different surface treatments were statistically different in relation to both resins evaluated (p < 0.05)
Summary
Since the increasing value placed on esthetic facial harmony, cosmetic dentistry has evolved to make it possible to perform direct restorations that are esthetically more desirable and cavity preparations that preserve tooth structures. Certain clinical problems associated with the use of direct composite resins have been seen. Among them there is the surface roughness of the restoration[2,3]. The difficulty in achieving a smooth and shiny surface through finishing and polishing the restoration is of concern. This occurs mainly due to (1) the size, consistency and quantity of the composite applied, and (2) the hardness and grain size of the abrasive used[3,4]. A rough surface allows dental plaque to stick to it and secondary caries and periodontal disease[5], and restoration marginal discoloration[6,7,8]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
