Surface roughness of composite resins submitted to three different finish and polish systems

Lorem Krsna De Morais-Sousa,Francisco De Assis Do Nascimento-Júnior,Isabela Pinheiro Cavalcanti Lima,Taynara De Araújo Ribeiro Tabosa,Adrielly Fonseca Mendes

doi:10.33448/rsd-v10i4.14194

Lorem Krsna De Morais-Sousa, Francisco De Assis Do Nascimento-Júnior + Show 3 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v10i4.14194

Copy DOI

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the in vitro performance of three different finishing and polishing systems, concerning providing better surface smoothness. Materials and methods: 2x4 mm specimens were made with 6 composites: Filtek Z250, Classic Herculite, Opalis, Filtek Z350, Zirconfilll and Estelite Omega, which were subsequently divided into four groups according to a different finishing system (Sof-Lex, OptiDisc, Praxis and Control). After polishing, twelve specimens were distributed to each of the six resins studied, making a total of 72 samples (n = 3), which had their roughness evaluated by a contact roughnessmeter. The Kruskal-Wallis test and Dunn's post-test with Bonferroni adjustment were used to search for significant differences. Values were considered significant when p <0.05. Results: The roughness values for finishing systems showed statistical differences between OpiDisc x Praxis (p = 1,000), OpiDisc and Sof-lex (p = 0.605) and Control and all systems (p <0.0001). There was no statistical difference when analyzing the combination of resin x system. The Mylar strip provided surface quality. Conclusions: The size, composition and shape of the filler influenced the surface. Sof-lex and Praxis showed similar results, thus being a good choice for polishing. Clinical Relevance: This study aimed to help the professional in the choice of a better material in the polishing step.

Highlights

Composite resin restorations require the performance of sensitive steps to obtain an ideal result (Lowe, 2015)
The structural composition of the resin itself, the finishing and polishing step has an influence on the surface quality of the restorations (Rodrigues-Júnior, et al, 2015) through the reduction of surface roughness and irregularities, minimizing the accumulation of biofilm and stains caused by the penetration of solutions and pigments of dietary origin (Itanto, et al, 2017; Lassila, et al, 2020; Morais, et al, 2015; Ruivo, et al, 2019)
Comparing the resins according to the Ra no significance was observed, when comparing the roughness according to the system, as is showed in Table 3, OptiDisc presented the highest roughness and this difference was significant

Summary

Introduction

Composite resin restorations require the performance of sensitive steps to obtain an ideal result (Lowe, 2015). For this reason, the evolution of composites was accompanied by the evolution of the materials that are part of these steps (Avsar, et al, 2015). The structural composition of the resin itself, the finishing and polishing step has an influence on the surface quality of the restorations (Rodrigues-Júnior, et al, 2015) through the reduction of surface roughness and irregularities, minimizing the accumulation of biofilm and stains caused by the penetration of solutions and pigments of dietary origin (Itanto, et al, 2017; Lassila, et al, 2020; Morais, et al, 2015; Ruivo, et al, 2019). Surfaces with roughness between 0.25 μm and 0.5 μm can be perceived (Alves, et al, 2015)

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion