Effects of air-polishing powders on color stability of composite resins.

Ahmet Umut Güler,Pelin Ozkan,Ali Çağin Yücel,Ibrahim Duran

doi:10.1590/s1678-77572011005000021

Abstract

ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of different air-polishing powders on the color stability of different types of composite resin restorative materials. Material and methodsThirty cylindrical specimens (15×2 mm) were prepared for each of 7 composite resin restorative materials. All specimens were polished with a series of aluminum oxide polishing discs (Sof-Lex). The prepared specimens of each composite resin were randomly divided into 3 groups of 10 specimens each, for control (Group-C) and two air-powder applications (Group-CP: Cavitron Prophy-Jet; Group-PS: Sirona ProSmile prophylaxis powder). A standard air-polishing unit (ProSmile Handly) was used. All specimens were air-powdered for 10 s at 4-bar pressure. The distance of the spray nosel from the specimens was approximately 10 mm and angulation of the nosel was 90º. Specimens were stored in 100 mL of coffee (Nescafe Classic) for 24 h at 37ºC. Color measurement of all specimens was recorded before and after exposure to staining agent with a colorimeter (Minolta CR-300). Color differences (∆E*) between the 2 color measurements (baseline and after 24 h storage) were calculated. The data were analyzed with a 2-way ANOVA test, and mean values were compared by the Tukey HSD test (p≤0.05). ResultsAccording to the 2-way ANOVA results, composite resin restorative materials, air-polishing powders, and their interaction were statistically significant (p<0.05) For Aelite Aesthetic Enemal, Filtek Z250, Grandio, CeramX Mono, and Quixfil composite resin restorative materials, no significant difference was observed between Group-PS and Group-CP (p>.05) and these groups demonstrated the highest ∆E* values. For Filtek Silorane and IntenS, the highest ∆E* values were observed in Group-PS. The lowest ∆E* values for all composite resin groups were observed in Group-C. When comparing the 7 composite resin restorative materials, Aelite Aesthetic Enemal demonstrated significantly less ∆E* values than the other composite resins tested. The highest ∆E* values were observed in Quixfil. ConclusionExcept for Quixfil, all control groups of composite resins that were polished Sof-Lex exhibited clinically acceptable ∆E values (<3.7). Air-polishing applications increased the color change for all composite resin restorative materials tested. Composite restorations may require re-polishing after air-polishing.

Highlights

Composite resins are widely used for the direct restoration of both anterior and posterior teeth because of the esthetic, physical, and mechanical properties of these materials
For Aelite Aesthetic Enemal, Filtek Z250, Grandio, CeramX Mono, and Quixfil, no significant difference was observed between Group-PS and Group-CP (p>0.05) and these groups demonstrated the highest ∆E* values
The lowest ∆E* values were observed in Group-C for above composite resin groups

Summary

Introduction

Composite resins are widely used for the direct restoration of both anterior and posterior teeth because of the esthetic, physical, and mechanical properties of these materials. A resin composite is composed of 4 major components: organic J Appl Oral Sci. polymer matrix, inorganic filler particles, coupling agents, and the initiator-accelerator system. The organic polymer matrix in most commercial composites today is either an aromatic or urethane diacrylate oligomer. The 3 most common oligomers that have been used in dental composites are bisphenol- A-diglycidyl-ether-methacrylate Siloranes have been suggested as alternatives to methacrylates as matrix resin components for dental composite because of their physical properties. Composite resins have been classified according to various characteristics such as filler type, filler distribution, average particle size of filler, and physical and mechanical properties of the materials. Three categories have been proposed for widely used composite resins: microfilled, microhybrid, and nanocomposite

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion