Influence of finishing/polishing procedures on the surface texture of two resin composites

Changes in Gloss Alteration, Surface Roughness, and Color of Direct Dental Restorative Materials after Professional Dental Prophylaxis

In the context of optimizing dental care for patients who are elderly, the purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the surface gloss (with a micro-area gloss meter) of, surface roughness (with a compact surface roughness measuring instrument) of, and color change (with a dental colorimeter) in two commercially available injectable resin-based composites (Estelite Universal Flow (EUF) and Beautifil Flow Plus F00 (BFP)) as well as two glass-ionomer cements (GC Fuji II LC CAPSULE (FLC) and GC Fuji IX GP EXTRA CAPSULE (FGP)), before and after dental prophylaxis. After 24 h, the surfaces of each specimen were polished at 2500 rpm with a prophy brush (Mersage Brush, Shofu) and one-step prophylaxis paste (Prophy Paste Pro, Directa): under 100 or 300 gf load, and for 10 or 30 s, 4× cycles of cleaning. After mechanical cleaning, conditions were found for a significant reduction in the gloss level (EUF, BFP, or FLC; p < 0.05) and a significant increase in surface roughness (BFP; 300 gf load, 10 s × four cycles of cleaning). Overall, the longer time or higher prophylaxis load tended to decrease the surface gloss. However, the observed change in surface roughness varied between the restorative materials. There was no color change post-prophylaxis.

Esthetical Properties of Single-Shade and Multishade Composites in Posterior Teeth

This study aimed to compare the aesthetic properties of posterior composite restorations made with a multishade (MS) or single-shade (SS) material. For that, 23 extracted human molars were used. The shade determination was performed, and the occlusal anatomy was registered by a custom-made stamp. Then, class I preparations were made, and each tooth was restored twice, using two different composites of MS/opacity layering material (Admira Fusion-Voco) and an SS/opacity bulk-fill composite (Admira Fusion X-tra-Voco). After finishing the first restoration with the MS material, a standardized picture was taken, and the restoration was removed. Then, the preparation was restored again with the other composite, obtaining a new picture. The pictures were randomly analyzed by 10 calibrated evaluators regarding color match using the FDI criteria. The evaluators were blinded to the restorative material used. Data were analyzed using an unpaired t-test and Wilcoxon test. The significance level adopted in the study was 5%. As a result, there were nonsignificant differences between the composites evaluated for color match, as well nonsignificant differences were obtained related to which restorative technique produced the best aesthetic results. Only for darker shades (A4, B4, and C4), most of the evaluators considered the restorations made with the MS material more aesthetic than with the SS, while for the other shades, nonsignificant differences were observed. Therefore, the choice of the SS and the MS/opacity composites does not influence the aesthetic outcome of posterior restorations for the lighter shades. However, the use of bulk fill material for dark shades is less favorable than the MS layering ones.

Does Sterilization Affect the Performance of Single-Step Resin Composite Polishers?

(1) Background: Single-step polishers are used extensively for resin-composite polishing. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of sterilization on their performance. (2) Methods: Optrapol Next Generation/Ivoclar-Vivadent, Jazz Supreme/SS White, Optishine Brush/Kerr and Jiffy Polishing Brush/Ultradent were used for polishing a nanohybrid resin composite (IPS Empress Direct/Ivoclar-Vivadent). Polishers (n = 40) were microscopically inspected before use. After polishing, surface roughness (Sa, Sz, Sdr, Sci) and gloss were determined. Polishers were subsequently sterilized and microscopically re-examined. The process was repeated four times on new samples (n = 200). Data were analyzed using the Friedman test and Wilcoxon post hoc test, at α = 0.05. (3) Results: Optrapol's performance improved after the first sterilization for Sa and gloss, whereas it declined after the fourth sterilization for Sa. Jazz's, improved after the second sterilization for Sa and gloss and after the third sterilization for Sdr. An improvement trend was observed for Optishine after the first sterilization, but not statistically significant. Sa, Sz, and gloss declined after the fourth sterilization. Jiffy's performance was inconsistent, with a trend of performance loss after the fourth sterilization. (4) Conclusions: Performance of all polishing systems improved after the initial sterilization, but deteriorated after the fourth sterilization cycle. However, their performance can be considered clinically acceptable for a longer period of use.

Can Specular Gloss Measurements Predict the Effectiveness of Finishing/Polishing Protocols in Dental Polymers? A Systematic Review and Linear Mixed-effects Prediction Model

PURPOSE

The current gold standard measure to assess polishing efficacy is surface roughness (SR) assessed in laboratory research. Specular gloss (SG) has been negatively correlated to SR, which raises the following question: Can SG be used to accurately determine the effectiveness of a finishing/polishing procedure in direct resin composites?

METHODS

A systematic approach and search strategy, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, was developed and conducted in five electronic databases: PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE (Ovid), and SciELO/LILACS to identify laboratory studies that assessed SR and SG, simultaneously, of resin composites, without date or language restriction. Risk of bias assessment was carried out by two reviewers, independently. From the extracted quantitative data of SG/SR, regression analyses were performed, and a linear mixed-effects prediction model was derived using the nimble package in R (v4.0.3).

RESULTS

A total of 928 potential studies were found, out of which, 13 were eligible after criterion screening. Experimental groups featured 31 resin composites of six different filler types, with the most common being microhybrids followed by nanohybrids. More than half of the studies initially reported a linear correlation between SR and SG, which ranged from r2 = 0.34-0.96. Taking into account the regression analysis and prediction model posteriorly performed, the corresponding SG threshold for 0.2 μm is estimated to be >55 GU. Most of the evidence was classified as moderate or high risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

SG is universally correlated to SR in polymers, and a reference value of >55 GU is proposed, above which samples are considered well polished.

Development and maintenance of surface gloss of dental composites after polishing and brushing: Review of the literature

OBJECTIVE

To describe the effect of the composites' composition to produce high surface smoothness/gloss using finishers/polishers, and to assess maintained smoothness/gloss under toothbrush abrasion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed papers published from January 01, 2000 to September 01, 2021 were included, and keywords used were: filler particle size, shape, amount of dental composites; finishing/polishing, gloss/roughness, and toothbrush abrasion of composites. Seventy-five in-vitro studies were included in this literature review. Forty-six articles assessed filler particle size/composition/shape and distribution to obtain high gloss/smoothness on different formulations; and the finishers/polishers effect on these materials. Twenty-nine papers assessed toothbrush abrasion of composites.

RESULTS

Suprananofill/nanofill/microfills typically showed the smoothest and glossiest surfaces compared to nanohybrid, microhybrid and hybrid composites. Microfill (0.04-0.07 μm, 71-88 GU); suprananofill (0.001-0.8 μm, 52-92 GU), microhybrids (0.05-0.35 μm, 35-95 GU) and nanohybrids (0.05-0.21 μm, 66-97 GU). Composites with small, spherical particles tend to show smoother, glossier surfaces and more wear resistant compared to resin composites with larger or irregular particles. Several studies showed higher roughness and reduced gloss after toothbrush abrasion.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of this study, suprananofill/nanofill/microfill composites tended to show the smoothest/glossiest surfaces due to smaller particle size. Composites with small, spherical particles tended to show smoother/glossier surfaces. Overall, toothbrush abrasion showed higher surface roughness and reduced gloss.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Suprananofills/nanofills/microfills had good polishability and polish retention due to their smaller particle size. The effectiveness of a polishing system is material-dependent. In general, Enhance-PoGo, Sof-Lex discs, and Sof-Lex Spiral wheels showed similar level of smoothness.

Reduced-step composite polishing systems - a new gold standard?

OBJECTIVES

To compare the surface gloss and surface roughness of three contemporary composites when polished with reduced-step polishing systems or a conventional multiple-step technique.

METHODS

Fifty Discs (8 mm ø x 2 mm) were each fabricated from three composites; Essentia (ES), BRILLIANT EverGlow (EG), and Filtek Universal, (FU). 5 different polishing systems were randomly assigned 10 specimens from each composite group. The 'gold standard' multiple-step system consisted of Sof-Lex XT discs followed by DiaPolisher diamond paste (GC) (P1). The two-step systems were Polishettes (P2) and DIATECH ShapeGuard (P3) and the one-step systems used were; Opti1Step (P4) and OneGloss (P5). Surface gloss was measured using a glossmeter and surface roughness was measured by a profilometer. Statistical analysis was conducted using one-way ANOVA and Pearson correlation tests. Samples were also imaged across different length scales using scanning electron microscopy and macro-lens photography.

RESULTS

The highest gloss was obtained when P2 and P3 were used in all composite groups (p < 0.05). EG composite showed the lowest Sa (0.08 µm) when polished with P3 and highest gloss when polished with P2 (96.7 GU). Polishing with P5 resulted in highest Sa and lowest surface gloss in all composite groups (p < 0.05). A high correlation was found between Sa and gloss, r = 0.73 (p < 0.05). Both SEM and macro-lens photography supported quantitative data.

CONCLUSION

Both two-step composite polishing systems produced superior gloss compared to the traditional multiple-step polishing system. Mean surface roughness (Sa) and surface gloss are highly correlated with each other.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Some reduced step composite polishing systems tested in this study produced superior gloss outcomes compared to the traditional gold-standard multi-step polishing system. This may enable significant clinical chair-time reduction and faster polishing protocols.

Effect of Different Polishing Systems on the Surface Roughness and Gloss of Novel Nanohybrid Resin Composites

Objectives  To evaluate the surface roughness and gloss of three nanohybrid resin composites after polishing with three different polishing systems.

Materials and Methods  A total number of 112 disc specimens (10 × 3 mm) were prepared from nanohybrid—Empress Direct (ID), Grandio (GR), Filtek Z350 (Z350) and a microhybrid resin composite restorative materials—Filtek Z250 (Z250). Following 24-hour storage in 37°C distilled water, each composite group ( n = 28) was assigned into four groups ( n = 7) according to finishing/polishing (F/P) system: Mylar strip, Optrapol, Politip, and Sof-Lex (SL). The surface roughness (Ra, mm) was measured by a novel three-dimensional method using an image analysis software attached to an environmental scanning electron microscope. A glossometer was used to measure the surface gloss.

Results Statistical analysis used was ANOVA test. Two-way Anova test revealed that the “type of composite” and “F/P techniques” had a significant effect on both surface roughness and gloss of the tested resin composite materials ( p < 0.05). Tukey’s post hoc test showed that ID, GR, and Z350 revealed lower surface roughness and higher surface gloss than Z250 within the same polishing system ( p < 0.05). Sof-Lex polishing discs produced the lowest surface roughness and highest surface gloss values compared with Optrapol and Politip ( p < 0.05).

Conclusion  The tested F/P systems provided comparable surface roughness and gloss for nanohybrid composites. The Sof-Lex system provided the best surface roughness and gloss for nanohybrid composites.

Influence of Polishing Systems on Surface Roughness of Composite Resins: Polishability of Composite Resins

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this in vitro study was to compare, with a threshold value of 200 nm, the surface roughness obtained when using 12 different polishing systems on four different composite resins (microfill, nanofill, and two nanohybrids).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A total of 384 convex specimens were made using Durafill VS, Filtek Supreme Ultra, Grandio SO, and Venus Pearl. After sandblasting and finishing with a medium-grit finishing disc, initial surface roughness was measured using a surface roughness tester. Specimens were polished using 12 different polishing systems: Astropol, HiLuster Plus, D♦Fine, Diacomp, ET Illustra, Sof-Lex Wheels, Sof-Lex XT discs, Super-Snap, Enhance/Pogo, Optrapol, OneGloss and ComposiPro Brush (n=8). The final surface roughness was measured, and data were analyzed using two-way analysis of variance. Pairwise comparisons were made using protected Fisher least significant difference.

RESULTS

There were statistical differences in the final surface roughness between polishing systems and between composite resins (p<0.05). The highest surface roughness was observed for all composite resins polished with OneGloss and ComposiPro Brush. Enhance/Pogo and Sof-Lex Wheels produced a mean surface roughness greater than the 200-nm threshold on Filtek Supreme Ultra, Grandio SO, and Venus Pearl. Data showed that there was an interaction between the composite resins and the polishing systems.

CONCLUSIONS

A single polishing system does not perform equally with all composite resins. Except for Optrapol, multi-step polishing systems performed generally better than one-step systems. Excluding Enhance/Pogo, diamond-impregnated polishers led to lower surface roughness. Durafill VS, a microfill composite resin, may be polished more predictably with different polishers.

Press-on force during polishing of resin composite restorations

OBJECTIVE

To measure the press-on force during the polishing of composite restorations carried out by 10 dentists in a clinically simulated procedure.

METHODS

Composite restorations (Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill) were placed in standardized Class II two-surface cavities in first upper acrylic molars. The surfaces were roughened by sandblasting (50μm, 1bar). The tooth was mounted on a tailor-made device with a 3D force sensor (Kistler, Z21134-300, 10Hz). Ten dentists (7 male, 3 female) polished one Class II restoration each using the one-step polishing system OptraPol together with a dental handpiece and water spray. The dentists were allowed to use all shapes of the polishing system (small flame, large flame, cup, lens). During polishing, the press-on forces measured for up to 2 minutes. Simultaneously, the polishing procedure was recorded with a digital camera to correlate the forces with the polishing shapes and movements.

RESULTS

In total, 17,999 force measurements were available for analysis. The mean forces of all operators varied between 0.77(±0.63) N and 2.23(±1.48) N; the difference was statistically significant (ANOVA, post-hoc Tukey B, p<0.05). All dentists exerted maximum forces higher than 3 N (between 3.3N and 18.3N). Force values exceeded 2N during 25% of the polishing time. Female dentists polished with a statistically significant lower force than male dentists (ANOVA, p<0.001). Polishing with the large flame and the cup generated significantly higher forces than polishing with the small flame and the lens (ANOVA, post hoc Tukey B, p<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The press-on forces applied during polishing varied significantly between dentists and within the same dentist. In about 25% of the polishing time, forces were above the 2N limit, which is recommended by some manufacturers as the maximum polishing force. Test institutes and manufacturers should evaluate the polishing performance of polishing instruments with various press-on forces.

Effect of professional dental prophylaxis on the surface gloss and roughness of CAD/CAM restorative materials

Background

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of dental prophylaxis on the surface gloss and roughness of different indirect restorative materials for computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM): two types of CAD/CAM composite resin blocks (Shofu Block HC and Estelite Block) and two types of CAD/CAM ceramic blocks (IPS Empress CAD and Celtra DUO).

Material and Methods

After polishing the CAD/CAM blocks and applying prophylaxis pastes, professional dental prophylaxis was performed using four different experimental protocols (n = 5 each): mechanical cleaning with Merssage Regular for 10 s four times (Group 1); four cycles of mechanical cleaning with Merssage Regular for 10 s and Merssage Fine for 10 s (Group 2); four cycles of mechanical cleaning with Merssage Regular for 10 s and Merssage Fine for 30 s (Group 3); and mechanical cleaning with Merssage Fine for 10 s four times (Group 4). A glossmeter was used to measure surface gloss before and after mechanical cleaning, and a contact stylus profilometer was used to measure surface roughness (Ra).

Results

Polishing with prophylactic paste led to a significant reduction in surface gloss and increase in surface roughness among resin composite blocks, whereas the polishing-related change in surface gloss or roughness was smaller in Celtra DUO, a zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate block.

Conclusions

Changes in surface gloss and roughness due to polishing with a prophylactic paste containing large particles were not improved by subsequent polishing with a prophylactic paste containing fine particles.

Key words:CAD/CAM, professional dental prophylaxis, prophylactic paste, surface gloss, surface roughness.

Efeito da técnica de polimento na topografia de superfície e na transmitância da resina composta

Introdução: Clinicamente, é comum observar os efeitos de estratificação de restaurações de compósito apenas após o polimento. Objetivo: Avaliar o efeito da técnica de polimento na transmitância de luz e na topografia de superfície de uma resina composta. Material e método: Amostras da resina Filtek Z-350 XT (cor A1E) foram confeccionadas em matriz metálica. Uma das superfícies das amostras recebeu acabamento com brocas de 12 lâminas e polimento através de uma das seguintes técnicas: SL (Sof-Lex), EH (Enhance) e DH (DHPro). Ausência de polimento foi usada como controle. Após o polimento, as amostras deviam apresentar espessura final de 1 mm. A transmitância de luz foi avaliada através do espectrofotômetro, sendo considerada apenas a luz no espectro visível. A topografia de superfície foi avaliada através de interferometria a laser, com os parâmetros Sdq (híbrido), St (amplitude máxima) e As (média de picos e vales). Os dados (n=5) foram submetidos a ANOVA e teste SNK. O teste de correlação de Pearson correlacionou Sdq, St e Sa à transmitância (α=0,05). Resultado: Todos os sistemas de polimento aumentaram a transmitância de luz em relação ao controle, não havendo diferença entre estes. Apenas as amostras polidas com SL e DH apresentaram maiores valores de Sdq que o Controle. Já para os parâmetros St e Sa, EH mostrou menores valores que o controle. Sdq e St mostraram correlação significativa com transmitância. Conclusão: Todos os sistemas de polimento foram efetivos em aumentar a transmitância, sendo a redução dos valores Sdq e St relacionada a esta modificação.

Effect of different polishing systems and drinks on the color stability of resin composite

AIM

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the color stability of resin composit using different finishing systems and drinks.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Composit disks (5 mm diameter, 2 mm thickness) were prepared for each nanofilled composite using a brass mold. The specimens were divided into 5 finishing system groups Mylar strip (Mylar, DuPont, Wilmington, Del., USA), Soft Lex (3M(™) ESPE(™) St. Paul, MN, USA), Enhance (Dentsply-DeTrey GmbHD Konstanz, Germany), Hiluster (KerrHawe, Bioggio, Switzerland), Opti Disc (KerrHawe, Bioggio, Switzerland) and each group was divided into 10 subgroups (n = 10) and stored for 24 hours at 37°C in different drinks water coffee, coffee with sugar, tea, tea with sugar, diet coke, coke, light sour cherry juice or sour cherry juice. Color of all specimens was measured before and after exposure with a spectrophotometer using CIE L*a*b* relative, and color changes (ΔE*) were then calculated. The data were analyzed with a twoway analysis of variance (ANOVA), and mean values were compared by the Tukey HSD test (p = 0.05).

RESULTS

For the drinks, the lowest ΔE* values were observed in the water and highest ΔE* values were observed in sour cherry juice. When drinks with and without sugar were compared, all groups with sugar demonstrated a higher color difference than without sugar. For the different finishing systems, Mylar strip group demonstrated significantly highest color change; Enhance groups demonstrated significantly lowest color change.

CONCLUSION

Finishing treatments and storage solutions significantly affect the color stability of resin composite. The presence of sugar in drinks increased the color difference compared to drinks without composit.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Polishing techniques and drinking drinks with sugar may affect the color of esthetic restorations.

Surface roughness and color change of a composite: influence of beverages and brushing

This study evaluated the influence of beverages and brushing on the surface roughness(SR) and color change(∆E) of a composite resin.For this, 120-disks(10 mm×2 mm) of composite resin(Filtek-Z250) were prepared and polished. Initials SR(Ra-μm) and color(CIELab-system) were measured with rugosimeter and spectrophotometer; specimens were divided into four groups(red wine, soft drink, sugar cane spirit, or artificial saliva=control) and three subgroups(without brushing; brushed with Colgate or with Close-Up). Specimens were immersed in the beverage 5×/day, for 5', over 30 day, being two subgroups brushed(120 strokes/day). Color was measuredat 15th day, 30th day and after repolishment; SR at 30th day. ∆E-values were statistically different after immersion in the beverages(p<0.05). Red wine promoted the highest alteration, followed by soft drink=sugar cane spirit and finally saliva. At 30th day, specimens exhibited ∆E higher than 15th day; after repolishing, ∆E was similar to 15th day. Beverages and brushing negatively influenced the SR. Therefore, ∆E and SR can be influenced by beverages and brushing.

The effect of polishing technique on 3-D surface roughness and gloss of dental restorative resin composites

The aim of this study was to compare surface roughness and gloss of resin composites polished using different polishing systems. Five resin composites were investigated: Filtek Silorane (FS), IPS Empress Direct (IP), Clearfil Majesty Posterior (CM), Premise (PM), and Estelite Sigma (ES). Twenty-five disk specimens were prepared from each material, divided into five groups, each polished with one of the following methods: Opti1Step (OS), OptiDisc (OD), Kenda CGI (KD), Pogo (PG), or metallurgical polishing (ML). Gloss and roughness parameters (Sa, Sz, Sq, and St) were evaluated by 60°-angle glossimetry and white-light interferometric profilometry. Two-way analysis of variance was used to detect differences in different materials and polishing techniques. Regression and correlation analyses were performed to examine correlations between roughness and gloss. Significant differences in roughness parameters and gloss were found according to the material, type of polishing, and material/polishing technique (p< 0.05). The highest roughness was recorded when KD was used (Sa: 581.8 [62.1] for FS/KD, Sq: 748.7 [55.6] for FS/KD, Sz: 17.7 [2.7] for CM/KD, and St: 24.6 [6.8] for FS/KD), while the lowest was recorded after ML (Sa: 133.6 [68.9] for PM/ML, Sq: 256.5 [53.5] for ES/ML, Sz: 4.0 [1.3] for ES/ML, and St: 7.1 [0.7] for ES/ML). The highest gloss was recorded for PM/ML (88.4 [2.3]) and lowest for FS/KD (30.3 [5.7]). All roughness parameters were significantly correlated with gloss (r= 0.871, 0.846, 0.713, and 0.707 for Sa, Sq, Sz, St, and gloss, respectively). It was concluded that the polishing procedure and the type of composite can have significant impacts on surface roughness and gloss of resin composites.

Comparison of different finishing/polishing systems on surface roughness and gloss of resin composites

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare four finishing/polishing systems (F/P) on surface roughness and gloss of different resin composites.

METHODS

A total of 40 disc samples (15 mm × 3 mm) were prepared from a nanofill - Filtek Supreme Plus (FS) and a micro-hybrid resin composite - Esthet-X (EX). Following 24h storage in 37°C water, the top surfaces of each sample were roughened using 120-grit sandpaper. Baseline measurements of surface roughness (Ra, μm) and gloss were recorded. Each composite group was divided into four F/P disk groups: Astropol[AP], Enhance/PoGo[EP], Sof-Lex[SL], and an experimental disk system, EXL-695[EXL] (n=5). The same operator finished/polished all samples. One sample from each group was evaluated under SEM. Another blinded-operator conducted postoperative measurements. Results were analysed by two-way ANOVA, two interactive MANOVA and Tukey's t-test (p<0.05).

RESULTS

In surface roughness, the baseline of two composites differed significantly from each other whereas postoperatively there was no significance. The Sof-Lex F/P system provided the smoothest surface although there were no statistical significance differences between F/P systems (p>0.01). In gloss, FS composite with the EXL-695 system provided a significantly higher gloss (p<0.01). EX treated by Soflex revealed the least gloss (p<0.05). SEM images revealed comparable results for F/P systems but EX surfaces included more air pockets.

CONCLUSIONS

Four different finishing/polishing systems provided comparable surface smoothness for both composites, whereas EXL with FS provided significantly higher gloss. SEM evaluations revealed that the EX surface contained more air pockets but F/P systems were compatible.

Operator Variability Using Different Polishing Methods and Surface Geometry of a Nanohybrid Composite

The integration of a one-step polisher into a multi-step finishing procedure saves time and leads to a reproducible polishing result for different operators.

Review: Resin Composite Filling

The leading cause of oral pain and tooth loss is from caries and their treatment include restoration using amalgam, resin, porcelain and gold, endodontic therapy and extraction. Resin composite restorations have grown popular over the last half a century because it can take shades more similar to enamel. Here, we discuss the history and use of resin, comparison between amalgam and resin, clinical procedures involved and finishing and polishing techniques for resin restoration. Although resin composite has aesthetic advantages over amalgam, one of the major disadvantage include polymerization shrinkage and future research is needed on reaction kinetics and viscoelastic behaviour to minimize shrinkage stress.