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

Abstract

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.

The Effect of Finishing and Polishing Systems on Surface Roughness and Microbial Adhesion of Bulk Fill Composites: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

“…Two of the included studies indicated that flowable BF had comparable Ra values with regular BF [ 22 , 27 ]. Roughness values were significantly higher in microhybrid BF compared to other BF categories in two other studies [ 24 , 31 ]. Short fiber reinforced BF was found to have comparable roughness values to other BF composites in two included studies [ 21 , 31 ].…”

“…Wet F/P procedures were utilized in five studies [ 20 , 21 , 24 , 28 , 30 ]. In contrast, four studies performed dry F/P [ 23 , 25 , 26 , 31 ].…”

“…Both wet and dry F/P, were performed with different systems in the same study [ 27 ]. Ten studies performed the F/P procedures immediately after specimen preparation [ 20 - 24 , 26 , 28 - 31 ], while two studies stored the specimens for 24 hours before F/P [ 25 , 27 ].…”

“…According to the parameters considered in the analysis, four studies presented a medium-risk of bias [ 22 , 24 , 27 , 29 ], whereas eight investigations showed a high-risk of bias [ 20 , 21 , 23 , 25 , 26 , 28 , 30 , 31 ]. The risk of bias graph and summary are illustrated in Figure 2 .…”

“…One study performed a descriptive evaluation by scanning electron microscope (SEM) for the surfaces of nanofilled, nanohybrid and microhybrid BF. They found that the nanohybrid (Tetric EvoCeram BF) had a smooth surface with slight damage compared to the rough surfaces of the nanofilled (Filtek Bulk Fill) and microhybrid BF composites used, and this was inconsistent with the quantitative analysis [ 24 ].…”