Surface Roughness of Enamel and Dentin after Preparation Finishing with Rotary Burs or Piezoelectric Instruments

• Published in: Prosthesis (Basel, Switzerland) Vol. 5; no. 3; pp. 711 - 720
• Main Authors: Rapani, Antonio, Berton, Federico, Tramontin, Amedeo, Turco, Gianluca, Marchesi, Giulio, Di Lenarda, Roberto, Stacchi, Claudio
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Basel MDPI AG 01-08-2023
• Subjects: Aesthetics; Dental enamel; Dentin; finishing line; piezosurgery; Prostheses; prosthetic preparation; Statistical analysis; surface profilometer; Surgery; Turbines; Italy; Austria; United Kingdom > UK; United States > US
• ISSN: 2673-1592; 2673-1592
• DOI: 10.3390/prosthesis5030050

This study compares the effect of different handpieces (turbine, high-speed electric handpiece and piezoelectric device) on surface roughness of enamel and dentin when using diamond-coated working tips and burs of the same grit size. The experiment was conducted on 15 extracted first molars from patients aged 45 to 60 years. The occlusal portion was removed using a diamond-coated water wheel and then refined with a 120–130 μm grit bur in order to obtain a flat surface with an adequate exposition of the dentin core. Each surface was divided into three portions and every portion was finished with one of the three tested instruments. The rotary burs and piezoelectric tips had the same grit size (60 μm), and the load on handpiece during preparation never exceeded 150 g. Roughness parameters (Ra, Rsk, Rku) were recorded with a profilometer, and a SEM analysis of treated surfaces and working tips was conducted. Ra and Rsk differed significantly between enamel and dentin only after using turbine (p = 0.004 and p = 0.007, respectively). No significant differences were observed in Ra, Rsk and Rku between enamel and dentin when using a high-speed electric handpiece or piezoelectric device. The turbine produced higher Ra and Rsk values on dentin than the other devices, while no significant differences were found between piezoelectric handpiece and high-speed electric contra-angle on both substrates. Summarizing, the findings of the present study demonstrated that turbine generated rougher surfaces on dentin compared to the other handpieces. Moreover, the turbine produced more asymmetrical surface profiles on both enamel and dentin. However, it should be considered that these differences in roughness (Ra) were within the range of 0.25–0.30 μm: it is still unclear if these variations, although statistically significant, will influence final clinical outcomes.