Effect of various finishing and polishing systems on

Original article
Effect of various finishing and polishing systems
on surface roughness of composite resin:
a profilometric study
Claudio Poggio
Marco Lombardini
Alberto Dagna
Andrea Scribante
Marco Chiesa
University of Pavia, Italy
Department of Operative Dentistry
Policlinico “San Matteo”, Pavia, Italy
Correspondence to:
Prof. Claudio Poggio
Reparto di Odontoiatria Conservatrice
Policlinico “San Matteo”
Piazzale Golgi, 3 - 27100 Pavia, Italy
Ph. +39 0382 516257, +39 3398124925
Fax +39 0382 516224
E-mail: [email protected]
Submitted for publication: 08/06/2006
Accepted for publication: 23/02/2007
Summary
Effect of various finishing and polishing systems on
surface roughness of composite resin: a profilometric
study.
Aims. The aim of the study was to evaluate the surface
roughness of a nano-ceramic composite resin (CeramX Mono, Dentsply-DeTrey GmbH, Germany) after finishing and polishing with different systems.
Materials and methods. Ninety specimens were made in
composite resin (5 mm in diameter, 3 mm high) and divided into 9 groups according to different finishing/polishing procedures: group 1: three diamond burs (Komet,
Gebr. Brasseler GmbH & Co. Germany), group 2: three
diamond burs (SS White Burs, Inc. Lakewood), group 3:
two tungsten carbide burs (Komet, Gebr. Brasseler
GmbH & Co. Germany), group 4: two tungsten carbide
burs (SS White Burs, Inc. Lakewood, New Jersey), group
5: three polisher interspersed with diamond grit (Komet,
Gebr. Brasseler GmbH & Co. KG), group 6: resin reinforced by zircon-rich glass fiber Whitech points (Isasan,
Rovello Porro, Italy), group 7: PoGo polishing discs
(Dentsply-DeTrey GmbH, Germany), group 8: Enamel
Plus Shiny polishing paste (Micerium, Avegno, Italy),
group 9: control group (composite resin cured under
Mylar strip - no finishing/polishing procedures). Specimens were analysed using a profilometer to measure
the mean surface roughness (Ra); the data were subjected to one-way ANOVA and post-hoc Scheffè tests.
Results. Control group showed the lowest roughness
values among the finishing methods, groups 1 and 2
Annali di Stomatologia 2006; LV (2-4): 61-65
showed significantly higher roughness values than
groups 3 and 4 (P<0.02). As for polishing procedures
groups 5 and 6 showed significantly higher roughness
values than groups 7 and 8 (P<0.05).
Discussion. Multi-step diamond burs and composite
points obtained the worst results: they gave high
roughness values. Enamel Plus Shiny polishing paste
gave very low roughness values, as PoGo polishing
discs, which obtained the smoothness surfaces, comparable to that of control group (Mylar strip).
Key words: nano-filled composite resin, surface roughness, finishing and polishing.
Sommario
Effetto di diversi sistemi di rifinitura e lucidatura sulla
ruvidità di superficie di una resina composita: studio
profilometrico.
Obiettivi. Lo scopo della ricerca è stato valutare la ruvidità di superficie di una resina composita nano-riempita
(Ceram-X Mono, Dentsply-DeTrey GmbH, Germania) sottoposta a differenti procedure di rifinitura e lucidatura.
Materiali e metodi. Sono stati realizzati 90 campioni di
composito (diametro 5 mm, altezza 3 mm), suddivisi in 9
gruppi e sottoposti a differenti procedure di rifinitura/lucidatura: gruppo 1: tre frese diamantate (Komet, Gebr.
Brasseler GmbH & Co., Germania); gruppo 2: tre frese
diamantate (SS White Burs, Inc. Lakewood, New Jersey);
gruppo 3: due frese al carburo di tungsteno; gruppo 4:
due frese al carburo di tungsteno (SS White Burs, Inc.
Lakewood); gruppo 5: tre gommini con grana diamantata
(Komet, Gebr. Brasseler GmbH & Co. KG); gruppo 6: punte Whitech in resina rinforzata con fibre di zirconio (Isasan, Rovello Porro, Italia); gruppo 7: gommini a disco PoGo (Dentsply-DeTrey GmbH, Germania); gruppo 8: paste
da lucidatura Shiny A,B,C (Micerium, Avegno, Italia);
gruppo 9: controllo (nessuna procedura di rifinitura/lucidatura). Mediante rugosimetro è stata misurata la rugosità media di superficie dei campioni (Ra). Si è poi provveduto all’analisi statistica dei dati ottenuti mediante test
one-way ANOVA e Post-hoc di Scheffe’.
Risultati. Il gruppo di controllo ha fornito i valori di ruvidità inferiori. Tra i metodi di rifinitura, i gruppi 1 e 2 hanno dato valori di ruvidità più alti dei gruppi 3 e 4 in modo statisticamente significativo (P<0.02). Tra i metodi di
lucidatura, i gruppi 5 e 6 hanno fornito valori di ruvidità
significativamente più elevati dei gruppi 7 e 8 (P<0.05).
Conclusioni. Le frese diamantate multi-step e le punte in
composito hanno ottenuto i risultati peggiori: hanno dato alti valori di ruvidità. La pasta Enamel Plus Shiny ha
dato valori molto bassi di ruvidità, cosi come i dischi
PoGo, che hanno ottenuto le superfici più lisce, comparabili a quelle del gruppo di controllo (matrici Mylar).
Parole chiave: resina composita nano-riempita, ruvidità di
superficie, rifinitura e lucidatura.
61
C. Poggio et al.
Introduction
The longevity and the aesthetic appearance of composite restorations greatly depend on the quality of finishing and polishing techniques (Joniot, 2000).
Plaque retention, surface discoloration and aesthetics of
restorations have been related to the smoothness of their
surface. Surface roughness seems to affect the initial adhesion of cells, moreover gingival health is subjected to
surface texture of the restoration (Paravina, 2004).
Many studies demonstrated that the smoothest surface
is achieved using a polyester matrix in contact with the
surface of composite during curing (Pirani, 2004; ÜçtaŞli,
2004). However, the use of this strip is limited by complexity of tooth anatomy and by different restorative
procedures.
The trimming procedure for resin-based restorations allows four steps (Türkün, 2004): coarse finishing or reduction of excess, contouring, fine finishing, polishing.
A highly polished surface of composite resin restoration
is difficult to achieve. Resin matrix and filler particles of
composites do not abrade to the same degree due to
different hardness: craters are often formed around
hard quartz particles of conventional composites, so
that irregularities appear on the surface of the restoration. The filler content of composite also affects its
roughness, as micro-filled composites show smoother
surfaces than hybrid ones (Ryba, 2002).
Nano-ceramic composite resin should have good mechanical properties with high aesthetic features. The
structure made by small particles clusters leads to great
possibility to obtain a smoother surface.
Various techniques for polishing and finishing aesthetic
materials have been investigated. These methods include the use of aluminium oxide finishing disks, fine diamond finishing burs, carbide finishing burs, resin polishing points, polishing pastes (Chung, 1994; Şen,
2002). Several studies suggested that certain polishing
techniques may be best suited to specific materials
(Yap, 2004). Differences in smoothness surface have
been demonstrated using identical finishing systems on
different composite resins (Borges, 2004).
The purpose of this study was to compare the surface
roughness achieved using different finishing and polishing techniques on a nano-ceramic composite resin.
The null hypothesis of the study was that there is no
significant difference in surface roughness values
among the different finishing/polishing techniques.
Materials and methods
A nano-ceramic composite resin intended for both anterior and posterior restorations (Ceram-X Mono, DentsplyDeTrey GmbH, Germany) was used in the present study.
It is made of a resin dimetacrylate which contains the inorganic filler made of nano-ceramic clusters; the filler
content is 76% in weight.
The composite resin was cured into acrylic rings (5
mm in diameter, 3 mm high). Cavities were slightly
overfilled with material, covered by a Mylar strip,
placed between two glass slides (Hoelscher, 1998)
and cured for 40s on each side using Elipar Trilight
(3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) curing light with an
output of 800 mW/cm 2. The curing light-guide was
placed perpendicular to the specimen surface, at or
less than distance of 1.0 mm. After polymerisation and
during all the experimentation, the specimens were
stored in distilled water at 37˚C.
A total of ninety specimens was prepared.
The specimens were randomly assigned to 9 groups
(10 specimens for each group) and submitted to different finishing and polishing procedures.
Finishing procedures:
– group 1: three diamond burs (Komet, Gebr. Brasseler
GmbH & Co., Germany);
– group 2: three diamond burs (SS White Burs, Inc.
Lakewood, New Jersey);
– group 3: two tungsten carbide burs (Komet, Gebr.
Brasseler GmbH & Co.);
Table I - Finishing systems investigated.
Finishing systems
(Manufacturers’ code)
Type
8852.314.014
852EF.314.014
852UF.314.014
Diamond burs
30 micron
15 micron
8 micron
806.314.167.504.016
806.314.167.514.016
806.314.167.494.016
Diamond burs
30 micron
15 micron
8 micron
H134Q.314.014
H134UF.314.014
Tungsten carbide burs
16 blades (Q finishing instruments)
30 blades - trasversal cut (UF)
SE6-10
SE6-20
Tungsten carbide burs
20 blades
10 blades
62
Abrasive
Manufacturers
Ultrafine diamonds
Komet
Gebr. Brasseler GmbH
& Co., Germany
Ultrafine diamonds
SS White Burs, Inc.
Lakewood, New Jersey
Tungsten carbides
Komet
Gebr. Brasseler GmbH
& Co., Germany
Tungsten carbides
SS White Burs, Inc.
Lakewood, New Jersey
Annali di Stomatologia 2006; LV (2-4): 61-65
Effect of various finishing and polishing systems on surface roughness of composite resin: a profilometric study
– group 4: two tungsten carbide burs (SS White Burs,
Inc. Lakewood).
Table I shows the finishing systems investigated.
Polishing procedures:
– group 5: three polisher interspersed with diamond grit
(Komet, Gebr. Brasseler GmbH & Co., Germany);
– group 6: resin reinforced by zircon-rich glass fiber
Whitech points (Isasan, Rovello Porro, Italy);
– group 7: PoGo polishing discs (Dentsply-DeTrey
GmbH, Germany);
– group 8: Enamel Plus Shiny polishing paste (Micerium, Avegno, Italy).
Table II shows the polishing systems investigated.
Group 9 is control group (no finishing/polishing procedures).
All specimen preparation/finishing/polishing procedures
were performed by the same investigator, in order to reduce variability.
Finishing/polishing sequences are given in tables III
and IV.
After all specimens were finished/polished, they were
thoroughly rinsed with water and allowed to dry for 24h
before the average surface roughness (Ra) was measured (Kaplan, 1996; Damiani, 2003).
A profilometer (Perth-O-Meter, Perthen GmbH, Goettingen, Germany) was used to measure the surface roughness of specimens. Three measurements in different directions were recorded for specimens in each group; all
readings were taken at the centre of each specimen, giving a total evaluation length of 1 mm. The mean Ra value was determined for each specimen and an overall Ra
was determined for the total sample group.
Table II - Polishing systems investigated.
Polishing systems
(Manufacturers’ code)
Type
Abrasive
Manufacturers
Polisher interspersed
9400 204 030
9401 204 030
9402 204 030
Pre-polishing
Polishing
High-shine polishing
Diamond grit
Komet
Gebr. Brasseler
GmbH & Co., Germany
Whitech
Composite points
Zircon-rich glass fiber
Isasan Carbotech,
Rovello Porro, Italy
PoGo
Polishing Disc
Diamond micro-polisher
Diamond powder
Dentsply-DeTrey
GmbH, Germany
Enamel Plus Shiny
Micerium S.p.A.,
Avegno, Italy
- Shiny A
Diamond paste 3 microns
+ Hair Goat Brushes
Diamond powder
- Shiny B
Diamond paste 1 micron
+ Hair Goat Brushes
Diamond powder
- Shiny C
Aluminium oxide paste
+ Felt discs
Aluminium oxide powder
Table III - Finishing systems sequences.
Group
Finishing systems
Strokes
Handpiece speed
(Manufacturers’
recommended)
Usage
(Manufacturers’
recommended)
1
8852.314.014
852EF.314.014
852UF.314.014
6
20000 rpm
20000 rpm
20000 rpm
wet
wet
wet
2
806.314.167.504.016
806.314.167.514.016
806.314.167.494.016
6
20000 rpm
20000 rpm
20000 rpm
wet
wet
wet
3
H134UF.314.014
H134Q.314.014
6
20000 rpm
20000 rpm
wet
wet
4
SE6-10
SE6-20
6
20000 rpm
20000 rpm
wet
wet
Annali di Stomatologia 2006; LV (2-4): 61-65
63
C. Poggio et al.
Table IV - Polishing systems sequences.
Group
Polishing systems
Strokes
Handpiece speed
(Manufacturers’
recommended)
Usage
(Manufacturers’
recommended)
5
9400 204 030
59401 204 030
9402 204 030
12 light
intermittent strokes
6000 rpm
wet
6
Whitech
12 light
intermittent strokes
10000 rpm
wet
7
PoGo
12 light
intermittent strokes
12000 rpm
dry
8
Shiny A
Shiny B
Shiny C
6000 rpm
12000 rpm
12000 rpm
dry
wet
dry
12 light
intermittent strokes
Statistical analysis was performed using a computer software (Stata 7.0, Stata Corp., Station College, TX, USA).
Descriptive statistics including the mean, standard deviation, median, minimum and maximum values were calculated for each of the 9 groups. ANOVA test was applied
to determine significant differences in surface roughness
values among the different finishing/polishing techniques. Post-hoc Scheffè test was used. Significance for
statistical tests was predetermined at P<0.05.
Results
The null hypothesis of the study was rejected. The results of present investigation showed significant differences in roughness values among the different methods.
The results of the ANOVA test indicated the presence
of significant differences among the roughness values
of the various groups (P<0.05). Post-hoc Scheffè test
showed that group 9 (control group) showed the lowest
roughness values (P=0.000).
Among four finishing procedures, groups 1 and 2
showed no significant difference in roughness values between them (P>0.05), and both showed significantly
higher roughness values than groups 3 and 4 (P<0.02).
No significant differences were found between groups 3
and 4 (P>0.05) (Fig. 1).
Among four polishing procedures, Scheffè test showed
no significant differences between groups 5 and 6
(P>0.05), that both showed significantly higher roughness values than groups 7 and 8 (P<0.05). No significant difference were found among groups 7 and 8
(P>0.05) (Fig. 2).
Discussion
The effectiveness of finishing/polishing procedures on
composite surface is an important goal to be achieved in
the restorative process. Resin composite restoration can
64
Figure 1 - Mean and standard deviation of surface roughness
after finishing procedures in groups 1, 2, 3, 4 and 9.
Figure 2 - Mean and standard deviation of surface roughness
after polishing procedures in groups 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.
be imperceptible only if its surface closely resembles the
enamel surface. It is well-known that the smoothest obtainable surface is achieved by curing the material in direct contact with a Mylar strip (Damiani, 2003; Reis,
2003). However, removal of excess material or recountouring of restorations is often necessary. It’s clinically important to determine the finishing technique that results
the smoothest surface with minimum time and instruments (Türkün, 2004).
Annali di Stomatologia 2006; LV (2-4): 61-65
Effect of various finishing and polishing systems on surface roughness of composite resin: a profilometric study
Reis et al. (2003) compared six finishing and polishing
agents on surface roughness of two packable composites
and concluded that each packable composite requires
specific finishing/polishing devices, depending on the size
and amount of filler.
Yap et al. (2004) compared the smoothness of composite
and compomer restoratives. They stated that the effect of
finishing/polishing systems on surface roughness was
material dependent.
In our experimentation, we used a nano-ceramic composite resin in order to focus attention on different finishing/
polishing procedures. This class of new restorative materials should provide great polishing capability and
smoother surfaces than micro-hybrid composites.
Among the finishing methods investigated, in previous
studies (Roeder, 2000; Rüstü, 2005; Damen, 2006) it was
found that carbide burs provide a smoother surface than
diamond burs. This data were confirmed in our study.
Carbide burs provided great cut efficiency and better finishing degree. Clinicians can also appreciate faster finishing procedure (only two steps).
As for polishing methods, the final glossy surface depends on the flexibility of the backing material in which
the abrasive is embedded, the hardness of the abrasive,
the geometry of the instruments (Filho, 2003). In literature
we found controversial results. Marigo et al. (2001) suggested that multi-step systems provided a considerable
smoother surface. On the contrary, Yap et al. (2004),
Turkun et al. (2004) and Duvia et al. (2006), demonstrated that surface finish obtained with PoGo (one step) was
comparable or superior to that of two and multi-step polishing systems.
In this study, significant difference in surface smoothness
was shown between finished/polished materials. The
smoothest surfaces were produced by the Mylar strip; this
finding was in agreement with previous studies on composite resins (Hondrum, 1997; Yap et al., 2004).
Conclusions
This study demonstrated that the finishing technique with
tungsten carbide burs produced an excellent surface
smoothness; diamond burs gave higher roughness values.
The polishing technique with polisher interspersed with diamond grit and resin reinforced by zircon-rich glass fiber
Whitech points obtained the worst results; they gave high
roughness values, probably due to high tendency to wear
and rigidity.
Enamel Plus Shiny system (three steps) gave very low
roughness values, as PoGo polishing discs (one step),
which obtained the smoothness surfaces comparable to
that of control group (Mylar strip). As it was confirmed by
quoted literature and by our study, this one-step system
can be considered the most suitable polishing one, because it provides very smooth surfaces with very fast clinical procedures.
References
11. Borges AB, Marsillo AL, Pagani C, Rodriguesa JR. Surface
roughness of packable composite resins polished with various systems. Journal of Esthetic Restorarive Dentistry
2004; 16(1): 42-7.
Annali di Stomatologia 2006; LV (2-4): 61-65
12. Chung K. Effects of finishing and polishing procedures on
the surface texture of resin composites. Dental Materials
1994; 10:325-330.
13. Damen L, Putignano A, Cerutti A, Santarelli C, Rappelli G.
Different evaluations of a nano-ceramic composite finished
surface. Italian Journal of Operative Dentistry 2006; Vol. IV
(1):69.
14. Damiani F, Sacco S, Bruno E. Confronto fra diverse
metodiche di rifinitura e lucidatura delle resine composite:
Doctor Os 2003; 14(6):593-597.
15. Duvia G, Gandolfo R, Damiani F, Bruno E. AFM analysis of
six finishing and polishing techniques. Italian Journal of Operative Dentistry 2006; Vol. IV (1):73.
16. Filho HN, D’Azevedo MT, Nagem HD, Marsola FP. Surface
roughness of composite resins after finishing and polishing.
Brazilian Dental Journal 2003:14(1).
17. Hoelscher DC, Neme AML, Pink FE, Hughes PJ. The effect
of three finishing systems on four esthetic restorative materials. Operative Dentistry 1998; 23:36-42.
18. Hondrum SO, Fernandez R. Contouring, finishing an polishing class V restorative materials. Operative Dentistry 1997;
22(1):30-36.
19. Joniot SB, Grégoire GL, Auther AM, Roques YM. Three-dimensional optical profilometry analysis of surface states obtained after finishing sequences for three composite resins.
Operative Dentistry 2000; 25:311-315.
10. Kaplan BA, Goldstein GR, Vijayaraghavan TV, Nelson IK.
The effect of three polishing systems on the surface roughness of four hybrid composites. A profilometric and scanning electron microscopy study. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1996; 78(1):34-38.
11. Marigo L, Rizzi M, La Torre G, Rumi G. 3-D surface profile
analysis: different finishing methods for resin composites.
Operative Dentistry 2001; 26:562-568.
12. Paravina RD, Roeder L, Lu H, Vogel K, Powers JM. Effect
of finishing and polishing procedures on surface roughness,
gloss and color of resin-based composites. Americana Dental Journal 2004; 17(4):262-6.
13. Pirani C, Gullifa A, Marchionni S, Piana G. New methods to
finissh composite restorations: SEM evaluation. Italian Journal of Operative Dentistry 2004; 2(4):234-236.
14. Reis AF, Giannini M, Lovadino JR, Ambrosano GM. Effects
of various finishing systems on the surface roughness and
staining susceptibility of packable composite resins. Dental
Materials 2003; 19:12-18.
15. Roeder LB, Tate WH, Powers JM. Effect of finishing and
polishing procedures on the surface roughness of packable
composites. Operative Dentistry 2000; 25:534-543.
16. Ryba TM, Dunn WJ, Murchison DF. Surface roughness of
various packable composites. Operative Dentistry 2002;
27:243-247.
17. Rüstü G, Feridun H, Akin C, Özden OB, Ali KÖ. Surface
roughness of new microhybrid resin-based composites. JADA 2005; 136:1106-1112.
18. Şen D, Gǒller G, Işsever H. The effect of two polishing
pastes on the surface roughness of bis-acryl composite and
methacrylate based resins. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
2002; 11:527-532.
19. Türkün LS, Türkün M. The effect of one-step polishing system on the surface roughness of three esthetic resin composite materials. Operative Dentistry 2004; 29(2):203-211.
20. ÜçtaŞli MB, Bala O, Güllü A. Surface roughness of flowable
and packable composite resin materials after finishing with
abrasive discs. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 2004;
31:1197-1202.
21. Yap AUJ, Ng JJ, Yap SH, Teo CK. Surface finish of resinmodified and highly viscous glass ionomer cements produced by new one-step systems. Operative Dentistry 2004;
29:87-91.
22. Yap AUJ, Yap SH, Teo CK, Ng JJ. Finishing/polishing of
composite and compomer restoratives: effectiveness of
one-step systems. Operative Dentistry 2004; 29:275-279.
65