Comparative study of surface roughness between several finishing and polishing procedures on ormocer-based composite resin and nanohybrid composite resin

복합 레진에서 마무리 방법에 따른 표면 거칠기 비교

  • Jeong, Suk-In (Department of Dentistry, College of Medicine, Inha University) ;
  • Oh, Nam-Sik (Department of Dentistry, College of Medicine, Inha University) ;
  • Lee, Myung-Hyeon (Korea Institute of Ceramic Engineering and Technology) ;
  • Lee, En-Jung (Department of Dentistry, College of Medicine, Inha University) ;
  • Cho, Jung-Hyeon (Department of Dentistry, College of Medicine, Inha University) ;
  • Ji, Sung-Won (Department of Dentistry, College of Medicine, Inha University)
  • 정숙인 (인하대학교 의과대학 치과학교실) ;
  • 오남식 (인하대학교 의과대학 치과학교실) ;
  • 이명현 (한국 요업 기술원) ;
  • 이은정 (인하대학교 의과대학 치과학교실) ;
  • 조정현 (인하대학교 의과대학 치과학교실) ;
  • 지성원 (인하대학교 의과대학 치과학교실)
  • Published : 2008.04.30

Abstract

Statement of problem: Proper finishing and polishing enhance both the esthetics and the longevity of restored teeth. Blade finishing technique would be suited for smoothing and finishing. Evaluation of this technique are necessary. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the blade finishing and polishing procedures on the surface profile and roughness of ormocer-based composite resin and nanohybrid composite resin. Material and methods: The material included a ormocer-based composite resin ($Admira^{(R)}$ & $Admira^{(R)}$ Flow); a nanohybrid composite resin ($Grandio^{(R)}$ & $Grandio^{(R)}$ Flow). One hundred forty specimens of each group were prepared using a mylar strip and randomly divied into blade finishing and rubber polishing groups (n=10). The average surface roughness (Ra) in micrometers was measured and the surface profile was examined by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) (Magnification ${\times}$ 200). The data were analyzed by Mann-Whitney Test at 0.05 significance level. Conclusion: The results of this study indicated that the mylar strip produced the smoothest surface on all materials and among the finishing-polishing methods was not significanct difference (P>0.05). Ormocer-based flowable composite resin performedthe lowest variability in initial surface roughness among the tested materials.

전치부 영역에서의 복합 레진을 이용한 수복물의 표면은 착색과 치태 침착이 적어야 하며 치은 조직에 좋은 내성을 갖도록 평활해야 한다. 레진 수복 후 여러 마무리 방법중 blade를 이용한 방법은 치은과 접해있는 변연 부위의 불필요한 레진을 제거하고 마무리하는데 있어 치은 손상을 최소화하면서 간편하게 이용할 수 있는 방법이다. 본 연구의 목적은 현재 많이 사용되고 있는 nano-hybrid composite resin과 ormocer-based compostie resin 간의 여러 가지 마무리 방법에 있어 blade를 이용한 방법과 polishing을 시행한 경우의 표면 거칠기 및 nano계열과 ormocer 계열 복합 레진의 표면 특징을 비교하는 것으로 실험을 위해 가로 6mm, 세로 3mm, 높이 2mm의 금속 주형을 이용하여 레진 블록을 형성하고 대조군은 상면에 mylar strip을 위치시켜 광중합 하였으며, Ormocer - based composite resin ($Admira^{(R)}$)과 nanohybrid composite resin ($Grandio^{(R)}$)에서는 blade를 이용한 경우와 rubber polishing을 이용한 경우를 실험군으로 하였고, ormocer-based flowable composite resin ($Admira^{(R)}$ Flow)과 nanohybrid flowable composite resin ($Grandio^{(R)}$ Flow)에서는 blade를 이용한 경우, rubber polishing을 이용한 경우와 추가적으로 아무것도 시행하지 않은 경우를 실험군으로 하였다. 레진 블록의 표면은 profilometer 및 SEM을 이용하여 거칠기 및 조도를 비교하였으며 통계분석 하였다. 실험 결과 mylar stirp을 적용한 경우 Ra (${\mu}m$) 평균 값은 ormocer-base composite resin이 $0.25{\mu}m$, ormocer-based flowable resin $0.17{\mu}m$, nanohybrid composite resin $0.24{\mu}m$, nanohybrid flowable resin $0.18{\mu}m$ 였으며 blade를 적용한 경우 평균 값은 각각 $0.43{\mu}m$, $0.37{\mu}m$, $0.48{\mu}m$, $0.41{\mu}m$ 였다. 가장 낮은 Ra (${\mu}m$)은 mylar stirp을 적용한 시편에서 얻어졌으며, blade를 이용한 마무리 방법과 rubber polishing을 시행한 경우와 표면 거칠기 비교시 Ra (${\mu}m$)값에서 통계적으로 유의한 차이를 보이지 않았다 (P>0.05). Nanohybrid composite resin이 blade로 마무리하거나 rubber polishing후 ormocer-based composite resin보다 표면 거칠기 증가율이 좀 더 큰 것을 알 수 있었다. 이상의 결과는 blade를 이용한 마무리 방법이 다른 마무리 방법을 대체할 수 있을 것이라는 것을 보여주며, 이에 따라 본 실험 결과에 한정지어 볼 때 복합레진 수복후 마무리 방법으로 blade를 이용하여 시행하는 것이 적용가능 할 것이라 생각된다.

Keywords

References

  1. Ferracane JL, Condon JR, Mitchem JC. Evaluation of subsurface defects created during the finishing of composites. J Dent Res 1992;71:1628-32 https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345920710091601
  2. Grundy JR. Finishing posterior composites. An SEM study of a range of instruments and their effect on a composite and enamel. Restorative Dent 1985;1:148,150,152-8
  3. Bauer JG, Caputo AA. The surface of composite resin finished with instruments and matrices. J Prosthet Dent 1983; 50:351-7 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(83)80091-2
  4. Heath JR, Wilson HJ. Surface roughness of restorations. Br Dent J 1976;140:131-7 https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4803717
  5. Strassler HE, Bauman G. Current concepts in polishing composite resins. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 1993;5:12-7
  6. Chan KC, Fuller JL, Hormati AA. The ability of foods to stain two composite resins. J Prosthet Dent 1980;43:542-5 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(80)90328-5
  7. Weitman RT, Eames WB. Plaque accumulation on composite surfaces after various finishing procedures. Oral Health 1975;65:29-33
  8. Shintani H, Satou J, Satou N, Hayashihara H, Inoue T. Effects of various finishing methods on staining and accumulation of Streptococcus mutans HS-6 on composite resins. Dent Mater 1985;1:225-7 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(85)80046-4
  9. Quiroz L, Lentz DL. The effect of polishing procedures on light-cured composite restorations. Compend Contin Educ Dent 1985;6:437-9
  10. Jefferies SR. The art and science of abrasive finishing and polishing in restorative dentistry. Dent Clin North Am 1998;42:613-27
  11. Goldstein RE. Finishing of composites and laminates. Dent Clin North Am 1989; 33:305-318, 210-309
  12. Baseren M. 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; 19:121-34 https://doi.org/10.1177/0885328204044011
  13. Hondrum SO, Fernandez R, Jr. Contouring, finishing, and polishing Class 5 restorative materials. Oper Dent 1997; 22:30-6
  14. Yap AU, Sau CW, Lye KW. Effects of finishing/polishing time on surface characteristics of tooth-coloured restoratives. J Oral Rehabil 1998;25:456-61 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.1998.00253.x
  15. Lee HL, Orlowski JA, Kidd PD. Surface roughness of composite filling materials. Biomater Med Devices Artif Organs 1975;3:503-19 https://doi.org/10.3109/10731197509118641
  16. Lutz F, Setcos JC, Phillips RW. New finishing instruments for composite resins. J Am Dent Assoc 1983;107:575-80 https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1983.0300
  17. Stoddard JW, Johnson GH. An evaluation of polishing agents for composite resins. J Prosthet Dent 1991;65:491-5 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(91)90286-6
  18. Chung KH. Effects of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface texture of resin composites. Dent Mater 1994;10:325-30 https://doi.org/10.1016/0109-5641(94)90041-8
  19. van Dijken JW, Ruyter IE. Surface characteristics of posterior composites after polishing and toothbrushing. Acta Odontol Scand 1987;45:337-46 https://doi.org/10.3109/00016358709096356
  20. Jung M. Finishing and polishing of a hybrid composite and a heat-pressed glass ceramic. Oper Dent 2002;27:175-83
  21. van Noort R, Davis LG. The surface finish of composite resin restorative materials. Br Dent J 1984;157:360-4 https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4805494
  22. van Dijken JW, Meurman JH, Jarvinen J. Effect of finishing procedures on surface textures of some resin restoratives. A comparison between new and old types of composite resins. Acta Odontol Scand 1980;38:293-301 https://doi.org/10.3109/00016358009033596
  23. Brackett WW, Girdwood BJ. The effect of finishing method on the microleakage of Class V microfilled composite resin restorations. J Tenn Dent Assoc 1999;79:24-5