In-Vitro Comparative Study of the Effect of Four Finishing and Polishing Tools on Surface Roughness of a Microhybrid Resin Composite

Z Naser,Z Ghafari,H Kazemi,S Nemati Anaraki,T Bitaraf

doi:10.29252/jrdms.4.2.26

Abstract

In-Vitro Comparative Study of the Effect of Four Finishing and Polishing Tools on Surface Roughness of a Microhybrid Resin Composite

Highlights

The surface roughness of restorative materials is one of the problems that can cause plaque and bacteria to accumulate, eventually leading to unhealthy surfaces with consequences such as discoloration and gingival and periodontal inflammation. [1,2,3]increased staining of composite restorations will have a significant effect on their aesthetics
Least significant difference (LSD) and Tukey’s post hoc tests were used for the comparison of the mean surface roughness between each two groups, which showed that the differences between the control group and all four FlexiD (EVE) (P=0.01), Flexi-D (EVE) + diamond polishing paste (P
The present study showed that the highest levels of surface roughness were related to Rubber Polisher Teco (EVE) and Flexi-D (EVE) + diamond paste groups

Summary

Introduction

The surface roughness of restorative materials is one of the problems that can cause plaque and bacteria to accumulate, eventually leading to unhealthy surfaces with consequences such as discoloration and gingival and periodontal inflammation. [1,2,3]increased staining of composite restorations will have a significant effect on their aesthetics. Previous studies have investigated the surface roughness of microhybrid resin composites after F&P with aluminum oxide disc alone or aluminum disc with another F&P method (carbide bur, diamond bur or diamond paste).(9-16). The effects of four types of F&P tools, including Rubber Polisher Teco, Intensive twisted rubber polisher, Flexi-D disc, and diamond polishing paste, on the surface roughness of microhybrid resin composites were investigated in vitro. Materials and Methods: This experimental study was performed on 42 samples of CLEARFILTM AP-X microhybrid composite, which were divided into four groups of different F&P methods and one control group as follows: control (n=2), Flexi-D discs (n=10), Flexi-D + diamond polishing paste (n=10), Intensive twisted rubber polisher (n=10), and Rubber Polisher Teco (n=10). The level of surface roughness in Flexi-D samples was significantly lower than that of the other samples (P

Methods

Findings

Discussion

Conclusion