The Effect of Four Disc-shaped Polishing Systems on the Surface Roughness and Micro-hardness of Clearfil AP-X Esthetics Composite Resin

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Restorative and Esthetic Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Babol University of Medical Sciences, Babol, Iran

2 Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran

3 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

4 Department of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran

5 School of Dentistry, Babol University of Medical Sciences, Babol, Iran

Abstract

Background and aim: Polishing techniques are important in preserving the beauty and success of composite restorations. This study evaluated the surface roughness and micro-hardness of CLEARFIL AP-X Esthetics composite polished by different polishing systems.
Material and methods: A total of 50disc-shaped CLEARFIL AP-X Esthetics composite were prepared. Composite discs were divided into five groups. The first group was not polished, and other groups were polished by four types of polishing discs and were classified as follows: group 2: polished by Sof-lex disc, group 3: Optidisc, group 4: Dental finishing disc, group 5: Praxis polishing disc. All the specimens were stored in distilled water at 37 ° C for 24 hours, and after that, the surface roughness of composite samples was measured by a profilometer. After profilometry, the microhardness of samples was measured by the Vickers test. The data were analyzed using a one-way ANOVA test.
Results: The results indicated that the Sof-lex group had the lowest surface roughness with an average of 0.078±0.017, comparable with the control group(0.069±0.011). Statistical analysis demonstrated that surface roughness between different polishing systems was statistically significant (p<0.001). In addition, Praxis polishing disk with an average of 405.13±3.278 had the greatest micro-hardness than the control group (287.17±2.302 ), and an average of micro-hardness between different kinds of disc-shaped polishing systems was statistically significant (p<0.001).
Conclusions: Our results demonstrated that the Sof-Lex polishing system was more successful than other polishing systems in the finishing and polishing CLEARFIL AP-X Esthetics composite.

Keywords

Main Subjects


[1]  Rizzante FA, Mondelli RF, Furuse AY, Borges AF, Mendonça G, Ishikiriama SK. Shrinkage stress and elastic modulus assessment of bulk-fill composites. Journal of applied oral science. 2019;27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1678-7757-2018-0132.
[2]  Babina K, Polyakova M, Sokhova I, Doroshina V, Arakelyan M, Novozhilova N. The effect of finishing and polishing sequences on the surface roughness of three different nanocomposites and composite/enamel and composite/cementum interfaces. Nanomaterials. 2020;10(7):1339. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano10071339.
[3]  Alagha E, Alotaibi W, Maghrbil M, Hakami L, Alrashedi M. Effect of Different Finishing and Polishing Techniques on Surface Roughness of Two Universal Nanohybrid Composite Resins. Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences. 2020;8(D):182-8. https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2020.4926.
[4]  Ferraris F, Conti A. Superficial roughness on composite surface, composite enamel and composite dentin junctions after different finishing and polishing procedures. Part I: roughness after treatments with tungsten carbide vs diamond burs. International Journal of Esthetic Dentistry. 2014;9(1):70-89.
[5]  Soliman HA, Elkholany NR, Hamama HH, El-Sharkawy FM, Mahmoud SH, Comisi JC. Effect of different polishing systems on the surface roughness and gloss of novel nanohybrid resin composites. European Journal of Dentistry. 2021;15(2):259-65. DOI:10.1055/s-0040-1718477.
 [6] Kasraei S, Azarsina M, Majidi S. In vitro comparison of microleakage of posterior resin composites with and without liner using two-step etch-and-rinse and self-etch dentin adhesive systems. Operative dentistry. 2011;36(2):213-21. https://doi.org/10.2341/10-215-L.
[7]  Lopes GC, Franke M, Maia HP. Effect of finishing time and techniques on marginal sealing ability of two composite restorative materials. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 2002;88(1):32-6. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2002.127416.
[8]  Wilder Jr AD, Swift Jr EJ, May Jr KN, Thompson JY, McDougal RA. Effect of finishing technique on the microleakage and surface texture of resin-modified glass ionomer restorative materials. Journal of Dentistry. 2000;28(5):367-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(99)00075-5.
[9]  Yalçin F, Korkmaz Y, Baseren M. The effect of two different polishing techniques on microleakage of new composites in Class V restorations. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2006;7(5):18-25.
[10] Yap AU, Sau CW, Lye KW. Effects of finishing/polishing time on surface characteristics of tooth-coloured restoratives. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation. 1998;25(6):456-61. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.1998.00253.x.
[11] Akimoto N, Momoi Y, Kohno A, Suzuki S, Otsuki M, Suzuki S, et al. Biocompatibility of Clearfil Liner Bond 2 and Clearfil AP-X system on nonexposed and exposed primate teeth. Quintessence International. 1998;29(3):177-83.
[12] Pinto CF, Paes Leme AF, Ambrosano GM, Giannini M. Effect of a fluoride-and bromide-containing adhesive system on enamel around composite restorations under high cariogenic challenge in situ. J Adhes Dent. 2009;11(4):293-7.
[13] Kumari RV, Nagaraj H, Siddaraju K, Poluri RK. Evaluation of the effect of surface polishing, oral beverages and food colorants on color stability and surface roughness of nanocomposite resins. Journal of international oral health: JIOH. 2015;7(7):63-70.
[14] Barakah HM, Taher NM. Effect of polishing systems on stain susceptibility and surface roughness of nanocomposite resin material. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 2014;112(3):625-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.12.007.
[15] Rodrigues-Junior SA, Chemin P, Piaia PP, Ferracane JL. Surface roughness and gloss of actual composites as polished with different polishing systems. Operative dentistry. 2015;40(4):418-29. https://doi.org/10.2341/14-014L.
[16] Hassan AM, Nabih SM, Mossa HM, Baroudi K. The effect of three polishing systems on surface roughness of flowable, microhybrid, and packable resin composites. Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community Dentistry. 2015;5(3):242-247. doi:10.4103/2231-0762.159965.
[17] Barbosa SH, Zanata RL, Navarro MF, Nunes OB. Effect of different finishing and polishing techniques on the surface roughness of microfilled, hybrid and packable composite resins. Brazilian Dental Journal. 2005;16(1):39-44.
[18] Gönülol N, Yılmaz F. The effects of finishing and polishing techniques on surface roughness and color stability of nanocomposites. Journal of dentistry. 2012;40:e64-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2012.07.005.
[19] Nithya K, Sridevi K, Keerthi V, Ravishankar P. Evaluation of surface roughness, hardness, and gloss of composites after three different finishing and polishing techniques: an in vitro study. Cureus. 2020;12(2):e7037. doi:10.7759/cureus.7037.
[20] Canto FM, Alexandria AK, Magno MB, Silva EM, Maia LC. Topography and microhardness changes of nanofilled resin composite restorations submitted to different finishing and polishing systems and erosive challenge. Pesquisa Brasileira em Odontopediatria e Clínica Integrada. 2020;20. https://doi.org/10.1590/pboci.2020.003.
Volume 4, Issue 1
March 2022
Pages 16-20
  • Receive Date: 28 December 2021
  • Revise Date: 15 February 2022
  • Accept Date: 27 February 2022
  • First Publish Date: 01 March 2022