Effect of the different finishing and polishing procedures on the surface roughness of three different posterior composite resins

Sahbaz, Cafer; Bahşi, Emrullah; İnce, Bayram; Bakir, Elif Pınar; Cellik, Omer

doi:10.1002/sca.21295

Cited by 13 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous studies described the Sof-Lex system as providing a smooth surface when a rougher starting surface was evaluated (ie, silicon paper files, diamond or carbide burs). 7,11,[22][23][24][25] In this study, the control was smoother than the last polishing disc, which may have increased the S a . 26 In contrast to Sof-Lex, the Astropol system polishes the surface with a sequence of three silicon carbide-coated discs, 2,11 which are less abrasive (from 45 to 0.3 μm) and have fewer steps than Sof-Lex.…”

Section: Clinical Studies Havementioning

confidence: 70%

Influence of Polishing System on the Surface Roughness of Flowable and Regular-Viscosity Bulk Fill Composites

Rigo

Bordin

Fardin

et al. 2018

Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study evaluated the influence of polishing protocols on the surface roughness of flowable and regular bulk fill composites. Five bulk fill composites were tested: SureFil SDR Flow (SDR), Tetric EvoFlow Bulk fill (TEF), Filtek Bulk Fill Flowable (FIF), Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill (TEC), and Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior (FIP). Two polishing protocols were tested: Sof-Lex and Astropol. Astropol created a smoother surface for FIP (P < .05); however, the polishing protocol did not influence surface roughness on TEC (P > .05). SDR, TEF, and FIF exhibited rougher surfaces when polished. Sof-Lex created rougher surfaces for bulk fill composites. It was concluded that surface roughness was related to material composition rather than the polishing system. Int J

show abstract

Section: Clinical Studies Havementioning

confidence: 70%

Influence of Polishing System on the Surface Roughness of Flowable and Regular-Viscosity Bulk Fill Composites

Rigo

Bordin

Fardin

et al. 2018

Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Regarding surface morphology, SEM and AFM images showed rough surfaces after the finishing and polishing with Sof-Lex discs. According to Sahbaz et al, 37 the use of Sof-Lex discs results in good finishing and polishing levels compared to other systems. Thus, the irregularities presented by most of the resins in this study may have been due to the displacement of load particles, which produced surface grooves when combined with the use of a rotary instrument.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Physicomechanical characterization and biological evaluation of bulk-fill composite resin

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to evaluate the cytotoxic effect, degree of conversion (% DC), Vickers hardness (VH), and surface morphology of composite resins. Eleven resins, nine bulk-fill resins, and two conventional resins were evaluated. Each material was sampled to evaluate DC (using FTIR), VH, cytotoxicity (using MTT and Neutral Red -NR test), surface morphology (using SEM and AFM), and organic filler (using EDS). All statistical tests were performed with SPSS and the level of significance was set at 0.05. MTT revealed that the materials presented low or no cytotoxic potential in relation to the control. Opus was the resin with the lowest cell viability at a 1:2 concentration at 72 h (32%) and at 7 days (43%), but that significantly increased when the NR test was applied at a 1:2 concentration after 7 days. Thickness and surface subjected to polymerization had no influence on DC, and differences were observed only between the materials. In the microhardness test, statistical differences were observed between the evaluated thicknesses. The bulk-fill resins analyzed in this study exhibited low and/or no cytotoxicity to L929 cells, except for Opus, which showed moderate cytotoxicity according to the MTT assay. When the NR test was used, results were not satisfactory for all composites, indicating the need for different methodologies to evaluate the properties of these materials. The assessed resins demonstrated acceptable physicomechanical properties.

show abstract

“…These data are in conflict with several studies which reported that there were no differences in plaque accumulation throughout the roughness (Ra) range of 0.7 − 1.4 μ m [ 16 , 21 ]. Roughness comparative studies of novel composite materials, nanofills, suprananofills, nanohybrid, and microhybrid after one and multistep finishing and polishing procedures, do not clearly determine which material and polishing system brings the best results [ 2 – 10 , 14 , 22 ]. However, they confirm that roughness of composite structure depends on both the polishing system used and composite material structure and composition [ 4 – 6 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surface Geometry of Four Conventional Nanohybrid Resin‐Based Composites and Four Regular Viscosity Bulk Fill Resin‐Based Composites after Two‐Step Polishing Procedure

Granat

Cieloszyk

Kowalska

et al. 2020

BioMed Research International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives. The aim of the study was to determine the quantitative and qualitative surface structure of contemporary RBCs in posterior teeth reconstructions: regular viscosity bulk fill and conventional composites, obtained after two-stage polishing procedure. Materials and Methods. Four conventional nanohybrid composites (Tetric EvoCeram, GrandioSO, Filtek Z550, and Ceram·X Mono) and four regular viscosity bulk fill composites (Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill, X-tra fil, Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior, and QuixFil) were tested. Samples of each RBC were prepared using PMMA cylindrical mold. After two-step polishing procedure, a surface geometry was evaluated under profilometry (Turbowave v. 7.36, Hommel-Etamic) and SEM (VEGA 3, Tescan Analytics). To evaluate differences between values, the following nonparametric tests were used: Friedman’s ANOVA, Wilcoxon’s matched-pair test, ANOVA Kruskal-Wallis, and Mann-Whitney U. Results. All conventional RBCs showed Ra values in the range of 0.20-0.26 μm. Bulk fill showed higher values in range of 0.49-1.36 μm except for Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior, which achieved 0.23 μm Ra value. SEM images of conventional RBCs were described as smooth surfaces with slight damage except for TEC, which presented smooth surface with no damage. Bulk fill composites showed rough surface, except for TBF, which presented smooth surface with slight damage. Conclusions. Regular viscosity bulk fill composites do not constitute a homogeneous group regarding surface roughness after polishing. They obtain, for the most part, poorer smoothness values after polishing than conventional RBCs.

show abstract

Effect of the different finishing and polishing procedures on the surface roughness of three different posterior composite resins

Cited by 13 publications

References 20 publications

Influence of Polishing System on the Surface Roughness of Flowable and Regular-Viscosity Bulk Fill Composites

Influence of Polishing System on the Surface Roughness of Flowable and Regular-Viscosity Bulk Fill Composites

Physicomechanical characterization and biological evaluation of bulk-fill composite resin

Surface Geometry of Four Conventional Nanohybrid Resin‐Based Composites and Four Regular Viscosity Bulk Fill Resin‐Based Composites after Two‐Step Polishing Procedure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About