Surface Roughness of Nanofill and Nanohybrid Composite Resin and Ormocer-based Tooth-colored Restorative Materials after Several Finishing and Polishing Procedures

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of several finishing and polishing procedures on the surface roughness of nanofill and nanohybrid composites and ormocer-based dental restorative materials. The materials included a nanofill composite (Supreme); a nanohybrid composite (Grandio); and an ormocer (organically modified ceramic) (Admira). Forty specimens of each material were prepared using a Mylar strip (polyester strip) and randomly divided into four finishing and polishing groups (n =10): (I) Diamond bur/Super-snap Rainbow Technique Kit(Al(2)O(2)-coated, graded abrasive discs); (II) Diamond bur/Astropol and Astrobrush system (silicone abrasive polishers and brush system); (III) Tungsten carbide bur/Super-snap Rainbow Technique Kit; and (IV) Tungsten carbide bur/Astropol and Astro-brush system. The average surface roughness (Ra) in micrometers was measured using a "Mahr Perthometer S4P" Surface Roughness Tester and the data were compared using ANOVA at P <or=0.05. The results of this study indicated that the Mylar strip produced the smoothest surface on all materials and among the finishing-polishing methods the first and the third methods performed significantly smoother surfaces than the second and the fourth methods for the three restoratives. Ormocer (Admira) performed the lowest variability in initial surface roughness among the tested materials. This study has shown that Super-snap abrasive discs produced a smoother surface than the Astropol and Astrobrush silicone polishers for composite and ormocer-based restorative materials, but the results would be valid clinically for readily accessible and flat surfaces i.e., not for all areas in the mouth. Therefore silicone polishers are necessary for posterior areas and for concave and convex surfaces.

Surface roughness and morphology of resin composites polished with two-step polishing systems

“…In addition to the finishing and polishing treatments, the surface roughness of the composites is also influenced by several material factors, such as the type, shape, size and distribution of the inorganic fillers 10,31) . The surface roughness has been decreased by decreasing the filler size 18) and increasing the filler content 11) .…”

Surface texture and roughness of polished nanofill and nanohybrid resin composites

“…For the Mylar strip-cured surface, the resin-rich surface must be eliminated [29][30][31] ; for the finished surface, it must be polished to obtain a smooth surface texture. In contrast to other studies 28,[32][33][34] where the resin composite specimens were polished after water storage for 24 hours or longer, the dry specimens were finished and polished soon after curing, following the routine clinical procedure.…”

“…Other authors used a different classification, placing nanohybrid TET together in a group with GRA and VED, although the latter composites contain a significant fraction of milled glass fillers and a relatively small percentage of discrete nanoparticles 32,33) . Among the resin composites tested in this study, only FIL was considered a true nanofill composite containing nanoclusters, whereas TET was a nanofill composite with a different concept, namely nanoparticles in prepolymerized secondary particles.…”

The Effect of Polishing Techniques and Time on the Surface Characteristics and Sealing Ability of Resin Composite Restorations After One-year Storage

“…A highly polished surface is difficult to achieve due to factors such as differing amounts of filler particles, particle size and differences in hardness between filler particles and the matrix of the resin composite. [11][12][13] The polishing ability of composites varies depending on particle size. 14 Although microfilled composites are more easily polished than hybrid composites, 11,15 it is believed that hybrid composites may provide the best properties and clinical performance for both anterior and posterior restorations.…”

“…[11][12][13] The polishing ability of composites varies depending on particle size. 14 Although microfilled composites are more easily polished than hybrid composites, 11,15 it is believed that hybrid composites may provide the best properties and clinical performance for both anterior and posterior restorations. [16][17] The development of an optimal surface polish means a reduction in stain and plaque accumulation, minimization of wear effects and an enhancement in the definitive restoration's appearance.…”