Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics

The Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry (대한치과보존학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The evaluation of surface roughness and polishing time between polishing systems

연마시스템에 따른 복합레진의 표면거칠기와 연마시간에 대한 평가

  • Kim, Ye-Mi (Department of Dentistry, Ewha Woman's University Mokdong Hospital) ;
  • Shin, Su-Jung (Department of Conservative Dentistry, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Song, Min-Ju (Department of Conservative Dentistry, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Park, Jeong-Won (Department of Conservative Dentistry, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Dentistry)
  • 김예미 (이화여자대학교 목동병원) ;
  • 신수정 (연세대학교 강남세브란스병원 보존과) ;
  • 송민주 (연세대학교 강남세브란스병원 보존과) ;
  • 박정원 (연세대학교 강남세브란스병원 보존과)
  • Received : 2011.01.19
  • Accepted : 2011.02.23
  • Published : 2011.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objectives: The purpose of this experiment was to evaluate four different polishing systems of their polishability and polishing time. Materials and Methods: 4 mm diameter and 2 mm thickness Teflon mold was made. Z-250 (3M ESPE) hybrid composite resin was slightly overfilled and pressed with slide glass and cured with Optilux 501 for 40 sec each side. Then the surface roughness (glass pressed: control group) was measured with profilometer. One surface of the specimen was roughened by #320 grit sand paper and polished with one of the following polishing systems; Sof-Lex (3M ESPE), Jiffy (Ultradent), Enhance (Dentsply/Caulk), or Pogo (Dentsply/Caulk). The surface roughness and the total polishing time were measured. The results were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Duncan's multiple range test. Results: The surface roughness was lowest in Pogo, and highest in Sof-Lex. Polishing times were shortest with Pogo, and followed by the Sof-Lex, Enhance and Jiffy. Conclusions: One-step polishing system (Pogo) is very effective to get the smooth surface in a short time, therefore it can be recommended for final polishing system of the restoration.

연구목적: 본 실험은 현재 임상에서 사용되고 있는 4가지 복합레진 연마 시스템의 연마 능력과 연마에 걸리는 시간을 평가하여 그 효율성을 알아보고자 하였다. 연구 재료 및 방법: 직경 4 mm, 높이 2 mm 의 테플론 몰드에 Z-250 (3M ESPE) 복합레진을 충전하고 양면을 슬라이드 글라스로 압접한 후 Optilux 501을 이용하여 각 면을 40초씩 중합하였다. 중합된 복합레진 디스크를 분리하고 #320 사포로 연마하여 동일한 거친면을 형성한 후 다음의 4가지 연마시스템을 이용하여 표면을 연마하였다: Sof-Lex (3M ESPE), Jiffy (Ultradent), Enhance (Dentsply/Caulk), and Pogo (Dentsply/Caulk). 연마된 면을 표면조도측정기를 이용하여 거칠기를 측정하고 연마에 소요된 시간을 측정하여 연마도와 효율성을 비교 평가하였다. 통계는 one-way ANOVA후 Duncan's multiple range test를 이용하여 군간의 비교를 하였다. 결과: 연마 후 표면조도는 Pogo에서 가장 낮게 나타났으며 Sof-Lex에서 가장 높게 나타났다. 연마에 소요된 시간은 Pogo에서 가장 짧게 걸렸으며 Sof-Lex, Enhance, Jiffy의 순으로 나타났다. 결론: One-step 연마 시스템인 Pogo는 복합레진의 연마에 있어 매우 짧은 시간에 매우 매끈한 면을 얻을 수 있는 것으로 나타나 수복물의 최종 연마에 매우 효율적으로 사용할 수 있는 것으로 평가되었다.

Keywords

References

  1. Yap AU, Yap SH, Teo CK, Ng JJ. Finishing/polishing of composite and compomer restoratives: effectiveness of one-step systems. Oper Dent 2004;29:275-279.
  2. 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;103:221-227. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(10)60034-0
  3. 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;13:258-269. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(97)80038-3
  4. Choi MS, Lee YK, Lim BS, Rhee SH, Yang HC. Changes in surface characteristics of dental resin composites after polishing. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2005;16:347-353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-005-0634-9
  5. Neme AL, Frazier KB, Roeder LB, Debner TL. Effect of prophylactic polishing protocols on the surface roughness of esthetic restorative materials. Oper Dent 2002;27:50-58.
  6. Stoddard JW, Johnson GH. An evaluation of polishing agents for composite resins. J Prosthet Dent 1991;65:491-495. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(91)90286-6
  7. Chung KH. Effects of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface texture of resin composites. Dent Mater 1994;10:325-330. https://doi.org/10.1016/0109-5641(94)90041-8
  8. Korkmaz Y, Ozel E, Attar N, Aksoy G. The influence of one-step polishing systems on the surface roughness and microhardness of nanocomposites. Oper Dent 2008;33:44-50. https://doi.org/10.2341/07-28
  9. Chen MH. Update on dental nanocomposites. J Dent Res 2010;89:549-560. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034510363765
  10. Turkun LS, Turkun M. The effect of one-step polishing system on the surface roughness of three esthetic resin composite materials. Oper Dent 2004;29:203-211.
  11. Lee JY, Shin DH. Surface roughness of universal composites after polishing procedures. J Kor Acad Cons Dent 2003;28:369-377. https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2003.28.5.369
  12. van Noort R, Davis LG. The surface finish of composite resin restorative materials. Br Dent J 1984;157:360-364. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4805494
  13. Da Costa J, Ferracane J, Paravina RD, Mazur RF, Roeder L. The effect of different polishing systems on surface roughness and gloss of various resin composites. J Esthet Restor Dent 2007;19:214-224; discussion 225-216. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.2007.00104.x
  14. Quirynen M, Bollen CM, Papaioannou W, Van Eldere J, van Steenberghe D. The influence of titanium abutment surface roughness on plaque accumulation and gingivitis: short-term observations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:169-178.
  15. Jones CS, Billington RW, Pearson GJ. The in vivo perception of roughness of restorations. Br Dent J 2004;196:42-45; discussion 31. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4810881
  16. Fruits TJ, Miranda FJ, Coury TL. Effects of equivalent abrasive grit sizes utilizing differing polishing motions on selected restorative materials. Quintessence Int 1996;27:279-285.
  17. St-Georges AJ, Bolla M, Fortin D, Muller-Bolla M, Thompson JY, Stamatiades PJ. Surface finish produced on three resin composites by new polishing systems. Oper Dent 2005;30:593-597.
  18. Almeida GS, Poskus LT, Guimaraes JG, da Silva EM. The effect of mouthrinses on salivary sorption, solubility and surface degradation of a nanofilled and a hybrid resin composite. Oper Dent 2010;35:105-111. https://doi.org/10.2341/09-080-L
  19. Heintze SD, Forjanic M, Ohmiti K, Rousson V. Surface deterioration of dental materials after simulated toothbrushing in relation to brushing time and load. Dent Mater 2010;26:306-319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2009.11.152
  20. Khalichi P, Singh J, Cvitkovitch DG, Santerre JP. The influence of triethylene glycol derived from dental composite resins on the regulation of Streptococcus mutans gene expression. Biomaterials 2009;30:452-459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.09.053
  21. Senawongse P, Pongprueksa P. Surface roughness of nanofill and nanohybrid resin composites after polishing and brushing. J Esthet Restor Dent 2007;19:265-273; discussion 274-275. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.2007.00116.x

Cited by

  1. Performance of a novel polishing rubber wheel in improving surface roughness of feldspathic porcelain vol.33, pp.6, 2014, https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2013-289
  2. Clinical Effectiveness of Different Polishing Systems and Self-Etch Adhesives in Class V Composite Resin Restorations: Two-Year Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial vol.42, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.2341/16-104-C