Effect of prophylactic polishing protocols on the surface roughness of esthetic restorative materials
Many polishing protocols have been evaluated in vitro for their effect on the surface roughness of restorative materials. These results have been useful in establishing protocols for in vivo application. However, limited research has focused on the subsequent care and maintenance of esthetic restora...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Operative dentistry Vol. 27; no. 1; p. 50 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , |
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
United States
01-01-2002
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | Get more information |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Many polishing protocols have been evaluated in vitro for their effect on the surface roughness of restorative materials. These results have been useful in establishing protocols for in vivo application. However, limited research has focused on the subsequent care and maintenance of esthetic restorations following their placement. This investigation evaluated the effect of five polishing protocols that could be implemented at recall on the surface roughness of five direct esthetic restorative materials. Specimens (n=25) measuring 8 mm diameter x 3 mm thick were fabricated in an acrylic mold using five light-cured resin-based materials (hybrid composite, microfilled composite, packable composite, compomer and resin-modified glass ionomer). After photopolymerization, all specimens were polished with Sof-Lex Disks to produce an initial (baseline) surface finish. All specimens were then polished with one of five prophylactic protocols (Butler medium paste, Butler coarse paste, OneGloss, SuperBuff or OneGloss & SuperBuff). The average surface roughness of each treated specimen was determined from three measurements with a profilometer (Surface 1). Next, all specimens were brushed 60,000 times at 1.5 Hz using a brush-head force of 2 N on a Manly V-8 cross-brushing machine in a 50:50 (w/w) slurry of toothpaste and water. The surface roughness of each specimen was measured after brushing (Surface 2) followed by re-polishing with one of five protocols, then final surface roughness values were determined (Surface 3). The data were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA. Significant differences (p=0.05) in surface roughness were observed among restorative materials and polishing protocols. The microfilled and hybrid resin composite yielded significantly rougher surfaces than the other three materials following tooth brushing. Prophylactic polishing protocols can be used to restore a smooth surface on resin-based esthetic restorative materials following simulated tooth brushing. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0361-7734 |