Surface Roughness of Tooth Coloured Restorative Materials

  • Noor Azlin Yahya Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University Malaya
  • Maria Angela Gonzalez Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University Malaya
  • Mohd Shahminan Ibrahim Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University Malaya
  • Yap Kai Wen Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University Malaya

Abstract

This study compared the surface roughness of selected tooth coloured restorative materials that were polished according to manufacturers’ instructions and Sof-Lex. It also assessed the surface roughness of polished materials after thermocycling. Filtek Z350XT, Beautifil-Bulk Restorative and Cention N, were used in this study. A stainless steel mould (10mm diameter x 2mm height) was used to fabricate 75 cylindrical specimens: 15 Filtek Z350XT (FZ), 30 Beautifil-Bulk Restorative (BB)  and 30 Cention N (CN). All 15 FZ specimens were polished with Sof-Lex. Fifteen BB and CN specimens were polished according to manufacturers’ instructions. The remaining fifteen BB and CN specimens were polished  using Sof-Lex. All the specimens were subjected to thermocycling (1000 cycles). Surface roughness was assessed quantitatively with profilometry after specimen preparation (Mylar stage), polishing and thermocycling. Data were analysed using SPSS version 25.0 at α=0.05. When polished according to manufacturers’ instructions, BB had the lowest mean surface roughness (Ra) values (0.13±0.01μm) followed sequentially by CN (0.14±0.03μm) and FZ (0.15±0.02μm). The differences were not statistically significant. When polished with Sof-Lex, BB exhibited the smoothest surface (0.116±0.03μm) followed sequentially by and FZ (0.150±0.02μm) and CN (0.157±0.02μm). Thermocycling caused an increase in the Ra. The differences were statistically significant.  All materials tested had Ra values below the threshold value of 0.2 µm at Mylar stage and after polishing with their recommended polishing system and Sof-Lex.  Thermocycling produced rougher surfaces that did not exceed the threshold Ra value. Polishability was material dependent.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Rashid H. The effect of surface roughness on ceramics used in dentistry: a review of literature. Eur J Dent. 2014;8(4):571–579.
2. Moraes RR, Gonçalves LS, Lancellotti AC, Consani S, Correr-Sobrinho L, Sinhoreti MA. Nanohybrid resin composites: nanofiller loaded materials or traditional microhybrid resins? Oper Dent. 2009;34(5):551–557.
3. Sainudeen S, Nair V, Padmanabhan P, Vijayashankar L, Sujathan U, Pillai R. Three-dimensional evaluation of surface roughness of resin composites after finishing and polishing. J Conserv Dent. 2016;19(1):91-95.
4. Senawongse P, Pongprueksa P. Surface roughness of nanofill and nanohybrid resin composites after polishing and brushing. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2007;19(5):265–273.
5. Chole D, Shah HK., Kundoor S, Bakle S, Gandhi N, Hatte N. In vitro comparison of flexural strength of cention-n, bulkFill composites, light-cure nanocomposites and resin-modified glass ionomer cement. J Dent Med Sci. 2018;17(10):79–82.
6. Dodiya PV, Parekh V, Gupta MS, Patel N, Shah M, Tatu S. Clinical evaluation of cention–n and nano hybrid composite resin as a restoration of noncarious cervical lesion. J Dent Specialities. 2019;7(1):3-5.
7. Bollen CM, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M. 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(4):258–269.
8. Lins FC, Ferreira RC, Silveira RR, Pereira CN, Moreira AN, Magalhães CS. Surface roughness, microhardness, and microleakage of a silorane-based composite resin after immediate or delayed finishing/polishing. Int J Dent. 2016;3:1–8.
9. Aykent F, Yondem I, Ozyesil AG, Gunal SK, Avunduk MC, Ozkan S. Effect of different finishing techniques for restorative materials on surface roughness and bacterial adhesion. J Prosthet Dent. 2010;103(4):221–227.
10. Kiomarsi N, Saburian P, Chiniforush N, Karazifard M, Hashemikamangar S. Effect of thermocycling and surface treatment on repair bond strength of composite. J Clin Exp Dent. 2017;9(8):945-951.
11. Morgan M. Finishing and polishing of direct posterior resin restorations. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent. 2004;16(3):211–216.
12. Gedik R, Hürmüzlü F, Coşkun A, Bektaş ÖÖ, Özdemir AK. Surface roughness of new microhybrid resin-based composites. J Am Dent Assoc. 2005;136(8):1106–1112.
13. Rathakrishnan M, Abzal M, Prakash V, Vivekanandhan P, Subbiya A, Sukumaran V. Evaluation of surface roughness of three different composite resins with three different polishing systems. J Conserv Dent. 2016;19(2):171-174.
14. Mei L, Busscher HJ, Mei HC, Ren Y. Influence of surface roughness on streptococcal adhesion forces to composite resins. Dent Mater. 2011;27(8):770–778.
15. Bollenl CM, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M. 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(4):258–269.
16. Chour RG, Moda A, Arora A, Arafath MY, Shetty VK, Rishal Y. Comparative evaluation of effect of different polishing systems on surface roughness of composite resin: An in vitro study. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2016;6(Suppl 2):S166–170.
17. Marghalani HY. Effect of filler particles on surface roughness of experimental composite series. J Appl Oral Sci. 2010;18(1):59–67.
18. Chour R, Moda A, Arora A, Arafath M, Shetty V, Rishal Y. Comparative evaluation of effect of different polishing systems on surface roughness of composite resin: An in vitro study. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2016;6(8):166-170.
19. Antonson SA, Yazici AR, Kilinc E, Antonson DE, Hardigan PC. Comparison of different finishing/polishing systems on surface roughness and gloss of resin composites. J Dent. 2011;39(1):9-17.
20. Veena KR, et al. Evaluation of surface roughness of composite resins with three different polishing systems and the erosive potential with apple cider vinegar using atomic force microscopy-an in vitro study. Acta Scientific Dental Sciences. 2019;3(2): 8-16.
21. Yuasa T, Iijima M, Ito S, Muguruma T, Saito T, Mizoguchi I. Effects of long-term storage and thermocycling on bond strength of two self-etching primer adhesive systems. Eur J Orthod. 2010;32(3):285–290.
22. Gale M, Darvell B. Thermal cycling procedures for laboratory testing of dental restorations. J Dent. 1999;27(2):89–99.
23. Rocha RS, Oliveira AC, Caneppele TM, Bresciani E. Effect of artificial aging protocols on surface gloss of resin composites. Int J Dent. 2017;1–6.
24. Yilmaz E, Sadeler R. Effect of thermal cycling and microhardness on roughness of composite restorative materials. J Restor Dent. 2016;4(3): 93-96.
25. Oliveira JC, Aiello G, Mendes B, Urban VM, Campanh NH, Jorge JH. Effect of storage in water and thermocycling on hardness and roughness of resin materials for temporary restorations. Mater Res. 2010;13(3):355–359.
Published
2020-10-16
How to Cite
YAHYA, Noor Azlin et al. Surface Roughness of Tooth Coloured Restorative Materials. Annals of Dentistry University of Malaya, [S.l.], v. 27, p. 41-49, oct. 2020. ISSN 2462-2060. Available at: <https://adum.um.edu.my/article/view/25139>. Date accessed: 16 jan. 2021.
Section
Original/Research Article