Comparison of surface finish of new aesthetic restorative materials

Abstract

This study compared the surface finish of eight different types of aesthetic restorative materials. The materials included resin-modified (Fuji II LC [FL], GC) and highly viscous (Fuji IX GP Fast [FN], GC) glass ionomer cements, a compomer (F2000 [FT], 3M-ESPE), minifilled (Z100 [ZO], 3M-ESPE) and microfilled (A110 [AO], 3M-ESPE) composites and materials based on recently introduced ormocer (Admira [AM], Voco), nanomer (Filtek Supreme Translucent [FST], 3M-ESPE) and nanocluster technology (Filtek Supreme [FS], 3M-ESPE). Sixteen specimens (3-mm long x 3-mm wide x 2-mm deep) of each material were divided into two equal groups. Specimens in Group 1 received no further treatment after polymerization against a matrix strip, while the specimens in Group 2 were roughened with 320 grit grinding paper using a lapping device and were finished/polished with a graded abrasive disk system (Super-Snap, Shofu). The mean roughness (Ra, microm) of materials was determined using a surface profilometry. Data was analyzed by ANOVA/Scheffe's test at significance level 0.05. Mean Ra values ranged from 0.04 to 0.16 microm for Group 1 specimens and 0.15 to 0.68 microm for Group 2 specimens. Results of statistical analysis were as follows: Group 1-FS, FST, FL, FN, AM > FT, AO, ZO; Group 2-FN, FT, FL > AO, FS, ZO, AM, FST (> indicates significantly greater Ra values). For the finished/polished composite materials, Ra values observed for AM and FST were significantly lower than for AO and FS. The surface finish of glass ionomers and compomer was significantly poorer than composites. Composite materials based on ormocer and nanomer technology were significantly smoother than those based on microfillers and nanoclusters.