Comparison of Different Finishing and Polishing Systems on Surface Roughness and Bacterial Adhesion of Resin Composite

Abstract

Insufficient dental restoration finishing and polishing may lead to plaque accumulation, gingival inflammation, staining, caries, and esthetic impairment. Here, the effect of two finishing and polishing systems on surface roughness and bacterial adhesion were evaluated. Two finishing and polishing kits were evaluated: diamond burs (Shine 1-2, Strauss & Co, Raanana, Israel) and paper discs (Sof-Lex 3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany) (n = 30 each). For each group surface roughness was evaluated using an optical profilometer (Contour GT-K1, Bruker, Billerica, MA, USA) (n = 10). Surface bacteria were evaluated for biofilm biomass using crystal violet (CV) staining (absorbance measured at 538 nm) and viable counts (CFU/mL) (n = 20). The control group included polymerized discs against a Mylar strip (n = 30). Student’s t test and one-way ANOVA were used for statistical evaluation. Diamond burs, paper discs, and control average surface RA were 169.4 ± 45.2 µ, 364 ± 77.7 µ, and 121.2 ± 18.1 µ, respectively. There was a significant difference found between all groups (p < 0.00001). Bacterial biomass on diamond burs, paper discs, and control samples were 0.458 ± 0.161, 0.507 ± 0.139, and 0.446 ± 0.142, respectively (p = 0.257). Viable bacterial counts (CFU/mL) on diamond burs, paper discs, and control samples were 2.25 × 104, 2.95 × 104, and 2.75 × 104, respectively (p = 0.856). A comparison between two finishing and polishing kits showed that the shine 1–2 diamond bur kit produced a smoother surface than the polishing disc kit. No differences were found in the biofilm biomass quantification and bacterial viable count between the groups.

Assessment of internal porosities for different placement techniques of bulk-fill resin-based composites: a micro-computed tomography study

“…2, it is clear that the incremental technique using conventional RBC (Group 1; control) and the monoblock technique with bulk-ll material and using sonic activation (Group 5) resulted in more apparent porous restorations. Concerning the incremental technique, the handling of small-sized increments may induce air entrapment and the creation of voids/defects in the bulk and surface of RBC restorations [19,20]. Remarkably, the use of modeler resins has been suggested to aid in the sculpting of direct RBCs, reducing the stickiness of composite increments and thus contributing to more uniform, less-defective restorations [19,21].…”