Comparison of One-Step and Multistep Polishing Systems for the Surface Roughness of Resin Composites

HTML  XML Download Download as PDF (Size: 1615KB)  PP. 73-80  
DOI: 10.4236/ojst.2016.63009    3,196 Downloads   5,630 Views  Citations

ABSTRACT

Aim: This study analyzed the effect of different finishing and polishing systems on the surface roughness of a microfilled (Amaris), and a nanofilled resin composite (Clearfil Majesty Esthetic) using Scanning electron microscope (SEM) analysis and surface roughness tester. Materials and Methods: Thirty five specimens of each material were prepared in a plexiglass mold (10 mm in diameter and 2 mm in depth) and cured against a Mylar matrix strip to create a baseline surface. The average surface roughness was measured using a surface profilometer (Mahr Perthometer SP4, Germany) in three different positions on each sample before and after finishing with one of the seven finishing procedures: Procedure 1: Mylar strip (control), Procedure 2: Tungsten carbide burs, Procedure 3: Diamond burs, Procedure 4: Procedure 2 + one-step diamond micropolisher (PoGo), Procedure 5: Procedure 2 + multi-step discs (Super-snap), Procedure 6: Procedure 3 + one-step diamond micropolisher (PoGo), Procedure 7: Procedure 3 + multi-step discs (Super-snap). The obtained data were analyzed using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Duncan test at a p = 0.05 significance level. Results: Nanofilled composite showed significantly lower Ra values than microfilled composite in procedures 4, 6 and 7 (p < 0.05). In other procedures, there were no significant differences among composites (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Nanofilled resin composite showed significantly lower Ra values than microfilled resin composite. Regardless of finishing methods, diamond micro-polisher produced smoother surfaces than polishing discs.

Share and Cite:

Baltacıoğlu, I. , Irmak, O. , Ulusoy, N. , Cengiz, E. and Bağış, Y. (2016) Comparison of One-Step and Multistep Polishing Systems for the Surface Roughness of Resin Composites. Open Journal of Stomatology, 6, 73-80. doi: 10.4236/ojst.2016.63009.

Copyright © 2024 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.