The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 8 , ISSUE 5 ( July, 2007 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Three-dimensional Surface Profile Analysis of Different Types of Flowable Restorative Resins Following Different Finishing Protocols

A. Rüya Yazici, Gerard Kugel, Ali Müftü

Citation Information : Yazici AR, Kugel G, Müftü A. Three-dimensional Surface Profile Analysis of Different Types of Flowable Restorative Resins Following Different Finishing Protocols. J Contemp Dent Pract 2007; 8 (5):9-17.

DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-8-5-9

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 01-07-2007

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2007; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim

The aim of this study was to investigate the surface roughness of different types of flowable restorative resins and compare the effectiveness of diamond finishing burs followed by aluminum oxide discs with aluminum oxide discs alone in producing smooth surfaces.

Methods and Materials

Twenty-four specimens (10 mm X 2 mm) for each flowable resin (flowable microhybrid composite, flowable liquid microhybrid composite, flowable compomer, and flowable ormocer) were fabricated in an acrylic mold and randomly assigned to three groups. In group I samples were left undisturbed after the removal of a Mylar strip (control). In group II samples were polished with diamond finishing burs, followed by aluminum oxide discs. In group III samples were finished with only aluminum oxide discs. The mean surface roughness (Ra, μm) was determined with 3-D non-contact interferometry. Data were subjected to one way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and post hoc comparison was accomplished using Tukey's HSD.

Results

Although significant differences in surface roughness (Ra) values were observed among the materials using a Mylar strip (control), no significant differences between restorative materials were found when all finishing/polishing methods were combined. For all flowable restorative resins tested, the Mylar strip produced surfaces smoother than those produced by a diamond finishing bur followed by a disc or by using discs alone. Surface roughness values were statistically similar for a diamond finishing bur followed by a disc and for disc treated surfaces within each material except for Dyract Flow, a flowable compomer.

Conclusion

Although the surface roughness of flowable restorative resins differs among the types, this difference can be overcome with different finishing/polishing methods.

Citation

Yazici AR, Müftü A, Kugel G. Three-dimensional Surface Profile Analysis of Different Types of Flowable Restorative Resins Following Different Finishing Protocols. J Contemp Dent Pract 2007 July;(8)5:009-017.


PDF Share
  1. A characterization of flowable composites. J Am Dent Assoc. 1998;129:567-577.
  2. Composite restorations: Influence of flowable and self-curing resin composite linings on microleakage in vitro. Oper Dent. 2002;27:569-575.
  3. Gingival response to Class V composite resin restorations. J Am Dent Assoc. 1983;106:482-484.
  4. Plaque accumulation on composite surfaces after various finishing procedures. J Am Dent Assoc. 1975;91:101-106.
  5. Effects of finishing/polishing time on surface characteristics of toothcoloured restoratives. J Oral Rehabil. 1998;25:456-61.
  6. Recent trends in esthetic restorations for posterior teeth. Quintessence Int. 1994;25:659-677.
  7. 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;76:34-8.
  8. The effect of three finishing systems on four aesthetic restorative materials. Oper Dent. 1998;23:36-42.
  9. Contouring, finishing, and polishing class 5 restorative materials. Oper Dent. 1997;22:30-36.
  10. Analysis of surface roughness of glass-ionomer cements and compomer. J Oral Rehabil. 2003;30:714-719.
  11. Direct posterior resin composite restorations: Considerations on finishing/polishing. Clinical procedures. Quintessence Int. 2004;35:359-366.
  12. Surface roughness of various packable composites. Oper Dent. 2002;27:243-247.
  13. Effect of polishing systems on the surface roughness of microhybrid composites. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2003;15:297-304.
  14. Surface geometry of three packable and one hybrid composite after finishing. Oper Dent. 2003;28:53-59.
  15. 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;19:121-133.
  16. The effect of one-step polishing system on the surface roughness of three esthetic resin composite materials. Oper Dent. 2004;29:203-211.
  17. Comparison of surface finish of new aesthetic restorative materials. Oper Dent. 2004;29:100-104.
  18. 3-D Surface Profile Analysis: Different finishing methods for resin composites. Oper Dent. 2001;26:562-568.
  19. Sturdevant's Art and Science of Operative Dentistry 4th edition St. Louis : Mosby; 2000:194-196.
  20. Effects of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface texture of resin composites. Dent Mater. 1994;10:325-330.
  21. Effect of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface roughness of packable composites. Oper Dent. 2000, 25: 534-543.
  22. Surface finish of a new hybrid aesthetic restorative material. Oper Dent. 2002;27:161-166.
  23. Surface finish produced on resin composites by new polishing systems. Quintessence Int. 1999;30:169-173.
  24. Effect of surface finishing and storage media on bi-axial flexure strength and microhardness of resin-based composite. Oper Dent. 2003;28:560-567.
  25. Surface roughness of flowable and packable composite resin materials after finishing with abrasive discs. J Oral Rehabil. 2004; 31: 1197-1202.
  26. Surface roughness and cutting efficiency of composite finishing instruments. Oper Dent. 1997;22:98-104.
  27. Effect of finishing on the in vivo wear rate of a posterior composite resin. J Am Dent Assoc. 1989;118:333-335.
  28. Surface roughness of finished composite resins. J Prosthet Dent. 1992;5:742-749.
  29. Evaluation of two polishing methods for resin composites. Am J Dent. 1994;7:328-330.
  30. Surface roughness of composites and hybrid ionomers. Oper Dent. 1996;21:53-58.
  31. Effect of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface roughness of new tooth-colored restoratives. J Oral Rehabil. 2003;30:218-224.
  32. Comparative evaluation of polishing systems on the surface of three aesthetic materials. J Oral Rehabil. 1997;24:888-894.
  33. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: A review of the literature. Dent Mater. 1997;13:258-269.
  34. Three-Dimensional optical profilometry analysis of surface states obtained after finishing sequences for three composite resins. Oper Dent. 2000; 25: 311-315.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.