The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  25 (2024)
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
Related articles

VOLUME 7 , ISSUE 5 ( November, 2006 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

The Effect of Two Different Polishing Techniques on Microleakage of New Composites in Class V Restorations

Meserret Baseren, Filiz Yalcin, Yonca Korkmaz

Citation Information : Baseren M, Yalcin F, Korkmaz Y. 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.

DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-7-5-18

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 01-02-2008

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2006; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of polishing systems on the microleakage of a nanofill, a nanohybrid, and a microhybrid composite in Class V cavities.

Methods and Materials

Preparations were made at the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) of 36 extracted human premolars. The teeth were randomly divided into three groups and restored with new resin composites according to the manufacturers’ instructions as follows: Group 1, Filtek Supreme & Single Bond; Group 2, Grandio & Solobond; and Group 3, Artemis & Excite. The restorations were finished with diamond finishing burs. The restored/finished teeth were randomly divided into two groups and polished using the following systems: Super-Snap (Al2O2 coated, abrasive disc system, fine grit, and extra fine grit) and Astropol/Astrobrush (silicon-based abrasive polisher point and polisher brush). All specimens were thermocycled 1000 times with a 10 second dwell time. They were immersed in 0.5% aqueous basic fuchsin dye for 24 hours and then sectioned buccal-lingual-longitudinally through the center of both restorations of each tooth and evaluated under a stereomicroscope at 30X magnification. The degree of dye penetration was quantified.

Result

No significant difference in leakage scores was observed in enamel margins (p=0.456, Kruskall Wallis test), but dentin margins were significantly affected by the different polishing systems (p=0.037, Kruskall Wallis test). The lower leakage scores were recorded for Astropol/Astrobrush polishing systems. The nanofill composite showed the least leakage among the test groups in this study. The most leakage was observed in nanohybrid composite resin (p<0.05, Mann Whitney U test).

Conclusions

Under the conditions of this in vitro study: the microleakage resistance of composites at enamel margins is not significantly affected by the different polishing systems; the lowest leakage scores were recorded for Astropol/Astrobrush polishing techniques in different types of composites; and the ranking of the composite materials from most to least leakage at the dentin margins according to polishing techniques was Grandio >Artemis > Filtek Supreme.

Citation

Yalcin F, Korkmaz Y, BasŞeren M. The Effect of Two Different Polishing Techniques on Microleakage of New Composites in Class V Restorations. J Contemp Dent Pract 2006 November;(7)5:018-025.

PDF Share
  1. Surface roughness of nanofill and nanohybrid composite resin and ormocer-based tooth-colored restorative materials after several finishing and polishing procedures. J Biomater Appl 2004;19(2):121-134.
  2. Esthetics: direct adhesive restoration on fractured anterior teeth. San Paulo Quintessence Books 1995, 397.
  3. Influence of finishing time on marginal sealing ability of new generation composite bonding systems. J Oral Rehabil 1998;25:871-876.
  4. Effect of finishing technique on the microleakage of resin modified glass ionomer restorative materials. J Dent 2000;28:367-373.
  5. Direct composite resin restorations: a review of some clinical procedures to achieve predictable results in posterior teeth. J Esthet Restorative Dent 2004;16(1):7-16.
  6. New finishing instruments for composite resins. J Am Dent Assoc 1983;107:575-580.
  7. The competition between the composite dentin bond strength and the polymerization contraction stress. J Dent Res 1984;63(12):1396-1399.
  8. The effect of three finishing systems on four esthetic restorative materials. Oper Dent 1998; 23: 193-201.
  9. The effect of polishing systems on microleakage of tooth colored restoratives: Part 2 Composite and polyasid- modified composite resins. J Oral Rehabil 2000;27:205-210.
  10. Microleakage: A review. J Dent 1976;4(5):199-206.
  11. Bacterial leakage around dental restorations: Its effect on the dental pulp. J Oral Pathol 1982;11(6):439-450.
  12. Microleakage related to restorative procedures. Proceed Fin Dent Soc 1992;88(Suppl 1):83-93.
  13. Influence of different restorative techniques on mikroleakage in class II cavities with gingival wall in cementum. Oper Dent 2001;26:253-259.
  14. Marginal quality and microleakage of adhesive class V restorations. J Dent 2001;29:123-130.
  15. Variations in tooth surface temperature in the oral cavity during fluid intake. Biomaterials 1987;8:411.
  16. Polymerization shrinkage of posterior composite resins and its possible influence on postoperative sensitivity. Quintessence Int 1986;17(2):103-111.
  17. Biodegratation of dental composites/glassionomer cements. Adv Dent Res 1992;6:50-54.
  18. Bond strength and microleakage of current dentine adhesives. Dent Mater 1994;10(4):253-258.
  19. Posterior composite resin restorative- clinical considerations Invanherie G&Smith Dc (eds) Posterior Composite Resin Dental Restorative materials St Paul 3M Co Peter Szulc Publishing Co, Netherlands 1985, 455.
  20. The cause of postrestorative sensitivity and its prevention. J Endodont 1986;12(10):475-481.
  21. Microleakage and internal voids in class II composite restorations with flowable composite linings. Oper Dent 2001;26:193-200.
  22. Effects of finishing/polishing techniques on microleakage of resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorations. Oper Dent 2003;28:36-41.
  23. The effect of polishing systems on microleakage of tooth colored restoratives: Part 1. Conventional and resin-modified glass-ionomer cements. J Oral Rehabil 2000;27:117-123.
  24. The influence of finishing technique on microleakage. J Esthet Dent 1990;2:142.
  25. The effect of three polishing systems on the surface roughness of four hybrid composites; a profilometric and scanning electron microscopy study. J Prosthet Dent 1996;76:34.
  26. Effect of finishing time and techniques on marginal sealing ability of two composite restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent 2002;88(1):32-36.
  27. Clinical relevance of physical, chemical and bonding properties of composite resin. Oper Dent 1985;10:61-73.
  28. Structural changes in composite surface material after dry polishing. J Oral Rehabil 1981;8:431-439.
  29. Restorative dental materials. 11 th ed. St. Louis : Mosby; 2001. p 670.
  30. Current concepts on adhesion to dentin. Critic Rew Oral Biol Med 1997;8(3):306-335.
  31. Evaluation of acidic primers in microleakage of class 5 composite resin restorations. Oper Dent 1998; 23: 244-249.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.