The Effect of Ultrasonic Scaling and Air-Powder Polishing on the Roughness of the Enamel, Three Different Nanocomposites, and Composite/Enamel and Composite/Cementum Interfaces

We aimed to assess the effects of ultrasonic scaling and air-powder polishing on the roughness of enamel, three nanocomposites (Premise, Herculite Ultra, Harmonize), and composite/enamel and composite/cementum interfaces. Class V cavities were restored in 99 extracted third molars with one of the three nanocomposites and treated with ultrasonic scaler or air-powder polishing device (calcium carbonate or sodium bicarbonate powders). The roughness (Ra) of the investigated surfaces was measured with contact profilometer before and after treatment. The data were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA. Specimens' Ra values before instrumentation were near the clinically acceptable 0.2 μm threshold. All techniques increased the roughness of the tested surfaces; however, the enamel was slightly affected. The mean Ra values after prophylaxis for composite, composite/cementum and composite/enamel surfaces were 0.32-0.55, 1.33-1.73, and 1.25-1.36, respectively. The extent of composite surface damage was material dependent. Premise surface was not altered by ultrasonic scaling significantly. Air-powder polishing with both powders produced a greater increase in surface roughness of composite resin and restorations margins than ultrasonic scaling. The Ra values after both types of air polishing for Herculite Ultra and Harmonize were approximately 1.5 and 2 times higher, respectively, than those after ultrasonic scaling (p < 0.05).

The Effect of Finishing and Polishing Sequences on The Surface Roughness of Three Different Nanocomposites and Composite/Enamel and Composite/Cementum Interfaces

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of final surface treatment and dental composite type on the roughness of the composite surface, composite/enamel interface, and composite/cementum interface, as well as on the polishing time. Class V cavities prepared in extracted teeth (n = 126) were restored using one of the three nanohybrid composites with different filler sizes. The specimens were randomly assigned to three different finishing and polishing sequences. The roughness (Ra) of the investigated surfaces was measured using the contact profilometer. The time required to achieve visible gloss was documented. The data were analyzed using ANOVA with Tukey's post hoc test (p < 0.05). There was no significant influence of the composite type on the restoration surface roughness (p = 0.088), while the polishing method had a significant impact (p < 0.001). The Ra of the composites ranged between 0.08 µm and 0.29 µm, with the lowest values (0.09 µm ± 0.05 µm) found in the aluminum oxide disc group (p < 0.001). The time to achieve a visible composite gloss was influenced by the polishing method, composite type, and interactions between these factors (p < 0.001). The interface roughness was significantly greater than that of the composite surface (p < 0.001), and depended on the composite type and polishing system employed.