Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Mar 3:2014:962764.
doi: 10.1155/2014/962764. eCollection 2014.

The effect of prophylactic polishing pastes on surface roughness of indirect restorative materials

Esra Can Say  1 , Haktan Yurdagüven  1 , Özlem Malkondu  2 , Nimet Ünlü  3 , Mübin Soyman  1 , Ender Kazazoğlu  2
Affiliations

The effect of prophylactic polishing pastes on surface roughness of indirect restorative materials

Esra Can Say et al. ScientificWorldJournal. .

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of prophylactic polishing pastes (PPP; Detartrine (DT), Topex (TP)) on surface roughness (R(a)) of indirect composites (IRC; Tescera (TES), Gradia (GRD), and Estenia C&B (EST)), a glass ceramic (Empress 2 layering (E2)), and a leucite reinforced glass ceramic (Empress Esthetic (EE)) with two different (glazed (G); polished (P)) surface preparations. A total of 90 IRC and 120 ceramic discs, 8 mm in diameter and 2 mm thick, were prepared. E2 and EE specimens were randomly divided into two groups (n = 30). One group was glazed (GE2; GEE), while the other group was polished (PE2; PEE) the same as the IRCs. The specimens in each group were subsequently divided into three subgroups: control (C), DT, and TP. R(a) (μm) was evaluated with a profilometer. Data were analyzed by Kruskal Wallis, followed by the Dunn's multiple comparison tests (P < 0.05). DT and TP resulted in significant surface roughening for TES, GRD, and EST, while no significant differences were detected between DT and TP (P > 0.05). PE2 and PEE were not affected by DT or TP (P > 0.05), while GE2 and GEE exhibited significant roughening after TP (P < 0.05). Surface roughness of IRCs and glazed ceramics can be affected by PPP applications.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
(a) Scanning electron micrograph of TES-C showing a homogenous distribution of different kind of filler particles. (b) TES-DT group presented scratch lines and some debonding of filler particles while TES-TP group revealed smooth scratch lines without debonding of fillers particles (c).
Figure 2
Figure 2
(a) Scanning electron micrograph of GRD-C showed prepolymerized, ceramic, and silica fillers with some debonding. (b) GRD-DT group revealed roughening of prepolymerized fillers along with resin abrasion between the fillers. Debonding of inorganic fillers was also evident. (c) GRD-TP showed similar surface morphology as the GRD-DT, however roughening of prepolymerized fillers was not as much as that in DT group.
Figure 3
Figure 3
(a) Scanning electron micrograph of EST-C group showed a homogeneous surface with a dense filler distribution and debonding of some inorganic fillers. (b, c) EST-DT and EST-TP groups revealed resin removal between the fillers and debonding of small filler particles.
Figure 4
Figure 4
(a) Scanning electron micrograph of GE2-C group showed a homogeneous surface. (b) GE2-DT showed some slight scratch lines while (c) GE2-TP revealed some defects and scratches.
Figure 5
Figure 5
(a, b) Scanning electron micrographs of PE2-C and PE2-DT groups revealed crystals that are characterized by a needle-like morphology while PE2-TP (c) showed some scratch lines.
Figure 6
Figure 6
(a, b) Scanning electron micrographs of GEE-C and GEE-DT groups revealed similar homogeneous surfaces while some defects were evident in GEE-TP group (c).
Figure 7
Figure 7
Scanning electron micrographs of PEE-C, PEE-DT, and PEE-TP groups presented similar surface morphology with small voids that were created during mechanical polishing.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Shimane T, Endo K, Zheng JH, Yanagi T, Ohno H. Wear of opposing teeth by posterior composite resins: evaluation of newly developed wear test methods. Dental Materials Journal. 2010;29(6):713–720. - PubMed
    1. Gordan VV, Patel SB, Barrett AA, Shen C. Effect of surface finishing and storage media on bi-axial flexure strength and microhardness of resin-based composite. Operative Dentistry. 2003;28(5):560–567. - PubMed
    1. Bollen CM, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature. Dental Materials. 1997;13(4):258–269. - PubMed
    1. Brambilla E, Cagetti MG, Gagliani M, Fadini L, García-Godoy F, Strohmenger L. Influence of different adhesive restorative materials on mutans streptococci colonization. The American Journal of Dentistry. 2005;18(3):173–176. - PubMed
    1. Ono M, Nikaido T, Iked M, et al. Surface properties of resin composite materials relative to biofilm formation. Dental Materials Journal. 2007;26(5):613–622. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources