• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.36 no.2
• /
• pp.119-124
• /
• 2011

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.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.1-8
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of a new resin monomer, filler size and polishing technique on the surface roughness of composite resin restorations using confocal laser scanning microscopy. By adding new methoxylated Bis-GMA (Bis-M-GMA, 2,2-bis[4-(2-methoxy-3-methacryloyloxy propoxy) phenyl] propane) having low viscosity, the content of TEGDMA might be decreased. Three experimental composite resins were made: EX1 (Bis-M-GMA/TEGDMA = 95/5 wt%, 40 nm nanofillers); EX2 (Bis-M-GMA/TEGDMA = 95/5 wt%, 20 nm nanofillers); EX3 (Bis-GMA/TEGDMA = 70/30 wt%, 40 nm nanofillers). Filtek Z250 was used as a reference. Nine specimens (6 mm in diameter and 2 mm in thickness) for each experimental composite resin and Filtek Z250 were fabricated in a teflon mold and assigned to three groups. In Mylar strip group, specimens were left undisturbed. In Sof-lex group, specimens were ground with #1000 SiC paper and polished with Sof-lex discs. In DiaPolisher group, specimens were ground with #1000 SiC paper and polished with DiaPolisher polishing points. The Ra (Average roughness), Rq (Root mean square roughness), Rv (Valley roughness), Rp (Peak roughness), Rc (2D roughness) and Sc (3D roughness) values were determined using confocal laser scanning microscopy. The data were statistically analyzed by Two-way ANOVA and Tukey multiple comparisons test (p = 0.05). The type of composite resin and polishing technique significantly affected the surface roughness of the composite resin restorations (p < 0.001). EX3 showed the smoothest surface compared to the other composite resins (p < 0.05). Mylar strip resulted in smoother surface than other polishing techniques (p < 0.05). Bis-M-GMA. a new resin monomer having low viscosity, might reduce the amount of diluent, but showed adverse effect on the surface roughness of composite resin restorations.

• Journal of the korean academy of Pediatric Dentistry
• /
• v.43 no.3
• /
• pp.275-283
• /
• 2016

The aim of this study was to evaluate the surface characteristics of composite resins polished with two different polishing methods. 30 disk-shaped specimens were prepared with microhybrid (Filtek$^{TM}$ Z250) and nanofilled (Filtek$^{TM}$ Z350) resins respectively, and classified into three groups: not polished as controls, polished by an abrasive disk (Soflex), and polished by a polishing brush (Occlubrush). Surface roughness was increased after polishing. In terms of micro-roughness, there were no significant differences between the two polishing methods. But macro-roughness values were markedly increased in the Occlubrush group (p < 0.05). In the Sof-lex group, the matrix and fillers were polished together, resulting into a smoother and homogeneous surface. However, in the Occlubrush group, the matrix layer was torn off, with more heterogeneous surfaces and large scratches. In regards to micro-hardness, no significant differences were observed between the two polishing systems (p > 0.05). And the hardness value increased about 25% after polishing. In conclusion, the method of polishing should be chosen deliberately in view of the hardness characteristics of composite resins. Sof-lex is recommended to improve the surface characteristics of polished resins.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.36 no.6
• /
• pp.483-489
• /
• 2011

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of glycerin topical application on the surface hardness of composite after curing. Materials and Methods: A composite (Z-250, 3M ESPE) was packed into a disc-shaped brass mold and light cured according to one of the following protocols. Group 1 (control) was exposed to air and light cured for 40 sec, group 2 was covered with a Mylar strip and light cured for 40 sec, group 3 was surface coated with glycerin and light cured for 40 sec, and group 4 was exposed to air and light cured for 20 sec and then surface coated with glycerin and cured for additional 20 sec. Twenty specimens were prepared for each group. The surface hardnesses of specimens were measured with or without polishing. Five days later, the surface hardness of each specimen was measured again. Data were analyzed by three-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc tests. Results: The surface hardnesses of the unpolished specimens immediately after curing decreased in the following order: group 2 > 3 > 4 > 1. For the polished specimens, there was no significant difference among the groups. Within the same group, the hardness measured after five days was increased compared to that immediately after curing, and the polished specimens showed greater hardness than did the unpolished specimens. Conclusions: The most effective way to increase the surface hardness of composite is polishing after curing. The uses of a Mylar strip or glycerin topical application before curing is recommended.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.39 no.4
• /
• pp.195-203
• /
• 2023

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the influence of surface sealants on the surface roughness of composite resins. Materials and Methods: The study used microfilled composite resin (Metafil CX, Sun Medical Co.) and hybrid composite resin (Aelite^TM LS posterior, Bisco). Sixty specimens (8 mm in diameter and 4 mm in height) of each composite resin type were prepared and divided into 3 groups. Each specimen was ground with 600, 1000, and 2000-grit sandpaper. The Surface roughness (Ra) values were measured using a surface roughness tester (SJ-301, Mytutoyo) before and after surface sealant application. Surface sealants, BisCover^TM LV (Bisco), Optiguard^® (Kerr), and Seal-n-Shine^TM (Pulpdent), were applied to the specimens, as instructed and observed by scanning electron microscope (JSM-7500, JEOL) and atomic force microscope (MultiMode IV, Veeco Instruments). Results: Specimens ground with 600-grit sandpaper coated with surface sealants exhibited significantly lower Ra values than the untreated group (P < 0.05). Specimens ground with 1000 and 2000-grit sandpaper showed statistically no difference. There was no significant difference in surface roughness among BisCover^TM LV, Optiguard^®, and Seal-n-Shine^TM. SEM and AFM revealed remarkably decreased microdefects on the surfaces of composite resins after surface sealant application. Conclusion: Surface sealants can influence surface roughness when applied on the rough surface of composite resins but not on highly polished composite resins.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.32 no.2
• /
• pp.138-150
• /
• 2007

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the difference of surface roughness of composite resin according to composite resin type, polishing methods, and use of resin sealant. Two hundred rectangular specimens, sized $8{\times}3{\times}2mm$, were made of Micro-new (Bisco, Inc., Schaumburg, IL, U.S.A) and Filtek Supreme (3M ESPE Dental Products, St. Paul, MN, U.S.A.), and divided into two groups; Micronew-M group, Filtek Supreme-S group. Specimens for each composite group were subdivided into five groups by finishing and polishing instruments used; M1 & S1(polyester strip), M2 & S2 (Sof-Lex disc), M3 & S3 (Enhance disc and polishing paste), M4 & S4(Astropol) and M5 & S5 (finishing bur), Polished groups were added letter B after the application of resin surface sealant (Biscover), eg, M1B and S1B. After specimens were stored with distilled water for 24hr, average surface roughness (Ra) was taken using a surface roughness tester. Representative specimens of each group were examined by FE-SEM (S-4700: Hitachi High Technologies Co., Tokyo, Japan). The data were analysed using paired t-test, ANOVA and Duncan's tests at the 0.05 probability level. The results of this study were as follows ; 1. The lowest Ra was achieved in all groups using polyester strip and the highest Ra was achieved in M5, S5 and M5B groups using finishing bur. On FE-SEM, M1 and S1 groups provided the smoothest surfaces, M5 and S5 groups were presented the roughest surfaces and voids by debonding of filler on the polished specimens. 2. There was no significant difference in Ra between Micronew and Filtek Supreme before the application of resin sealant, but Micronew was smoother than Filek Supreme after the application of resin sealant. 3. There was significant corelation between Ra of type of composite resin and polishing methods before the application of resin sealant (p=0.000), but no significant interaction between them after the application of resin sealant. On FE-SEM, most of composite resin surfaces were smooth after the application of resin sealant on the polished specimens. 4. Compared with before and after the application of resin sealant in group treated in the same composite and polishing methods, Ra of M4B and M5B was statistically lower than that of M4 and M5, and S5B was lower than that of S5, respectively (p<0.05). In conclusion, surface roughness by polishing instruments was different according to type of composite resin. Overall, polyester strip produced the smoothest surface, but finishing bur produced the roughest surface. Application of resin sealant provided the smooth surfaces in specimens polished with Enhance, Astropol and finishing bur, but not provided them in specimens polished with Sof-Lex disc.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.107-120
• /
• 1996

복합레진은 조작이 용이하고 강도가 우수하며 중합시간이 짧고 법랑질과 상아질에 접착이 가능하며 연마성이 뛰어나고 자연스러운 색상을 나타내므로 심미적 수복에 가장 일반적으로 선택되는 재료의 하나이다. 대부분의 복합레진 kit에는 shade guide가 포함되어 있어 이를 기준으로 중합된 후의 복합레진 색조를 예상하여 선택하게 된다. 그러나 이러한 shade guide들은 대개 복합레진이 아닌 plastic으로 제조된 것으로 중합된 복합레진의 실제 색조와는 차이가 생기게 되며 결국 shade guide 자체의 문제점으로 인해 이상적인 색조선택이 어려워진다. 이에 본 연구에서는 국내에 시판되고 있는 5종의 복합레진 제품을 선정하여 분광 광도계를 이용해서 shade guide와 중합된 복합레진 사이의 색조차이를 측정, 비교 연구하였다. 직경 16mm. 두께 1.6mm의 plastic mold에 5종의 광중합형 복합레진(Z100, Prisma TPH, Tetric, Silux Plus, Herculite XR)을 충전하고 응축기에 넣어 압축한 후 제조사의 지시에 따라 광중합기로 중합시킨 후 mold에서 시편을 제거하여 보관했다가 젖은 sandpaper 상에서 순차적으로 연마하였다. shade guide는 step부분을 갈아내어 복합레진 시편과 동일한 두께로 만든후 연마하였다. 분광광도계에 shade guide를 넣고 CIE illuminant D65 하에서 spectral reflectance를 측정하고 해당 색조의 복합레진 시편도 통일한 방법으로 측정하고 $L^*$, $a^*$, $b^*$값과 ${\Delta}E^*$값을 얻은후 분석하여 다음과 같은 결과를 얻었다. 1. Z100의 D3, A3, B2 shade와 Prisma TPH의 B2 shade를 제외한 모든 시편에서 shade guide와 복합레진간에 육안으로 인지할 수 있는 색차(${\Delta}E^*$ > 1.0)가 관찰되었다. 2. 평균적으로 Z100이 가장 적은 색차를 나타내었고 Prisma TPH, Tetric, Silux Plus, Herculite XR 순으로 색차가 증가하였다. 3. Prisma TPH의 A2 shade. Tetric의 W shade. Silux Plus의 YB, U shade, Herculite XR의 L, LY shade는 ${\Delta}E^*$값이 3.3 이상으로 나타났다. 4. Z100, Prisma TPH, Tetric, Silux Plus에서는 복합레진보다 shade guide가 더 높은 $L^*$값을 보이는 경향이 나타났으며, Herculite XR에서만 복합레진이 더 높은 $L^*$값을 나타냈다. 5. 모든 시편에서 $b^*$ 값은 (+)로 관찰되었고, Z100, Prisma TPH, Tetric, Silux Plus의 shade guide는 복합레진에 비해 높은 $b^*$값을 보였다. 6. 모든 시편에서 $a^*$값은 (-)로 관찰되었고. Herculite XR 및 Silux Plus에서는 복합레진이 shade guide 에 비 해 낮은 $a^*$값을 나타냈다.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.35 no.1
• /
• pp.1-10
• /
• 2019

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of polishing methods on the color stability of composite resins. Materials and Methods: Two bulk-fill and four conventional resin composites were filled in cylindrical molds (6 mm diameter, 4 mm height) and light-cured. The specimens were stored in $34^{\circ}C$ distilled water for 24 h. Spectrophotometer was used to determine the color value according to the CIE $L^*a^*b^*$ color space. Each group was divided into three groups according to polishing methods (n = 5). Group 1 was control group (Mylar strip group), group 2 was polished with PoGo, and group 3 was polished with Sof-Lex Spiral wheels. Color evaluation was performed weekly for 4 weeks after immersion in $34^{\circ}C$ distilled water. The results were analyzed by generalized least squares method (P < 0.05). Results: Generalized least squares analysis revealed that Sof-Lex Spiral wheels group showed the significantly lower ${\Delta}E$ values compared to PoGo and control group (P < 0.05). The ${\Delta}E$ values of polished group showed the significantly lower than the ${\Delta}E$ values of unpolished group (P < 0.05). Regarding color changes of composite resins, there was no significant difference between the ${\Delta}E$ values of Filtek Z250 and Filtek Z350 XT Universal restorative in all time intervals (P < 0.05). Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill showed the significantly lower ${\Delta}E$ values compared to other composite resins in 1, 2, 3 weeks (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, polishing methods influence the color stabilities of composite resins. The group polished with Sof-Lex Spiral Wheels showed more resistance to discoloration than group polished with PoGo.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.32 no.6
• /
• pp.542-549
• /
• 2007

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the difference in the surface roughness after polishing and to evaluate the difference in color stability after immersion in a dye solution among four types of composite resin materials. Four light-polymerized composite resins(Shade A2) with different sized filler content(a nanofilled, a hybrid, a microfilled, a flowble) were used. Average surface roughness (Ra) was measured with a surface roughness tester (Surftest Formtracer) before and after polishing with aluminum oxide abrasive discs(Super-Snap). Color of specimens before and after staining with 2% methylene blue solution were measured using spectrophotometer(CM-3700d) with SCI geometries. The results of Ra and ${\Delta}E$ were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance(ANOVA), a Scheffe multiple comparison test and Student t-test(p=0.05). After polishing, Ra values were decreased regardless of type of composite resins. In surface roughness after polishing and color stability after staining, nanofilled composite resin was not different with other composite resins except flowable resins.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.32 no.4
• /
• pp.356-364
• /
• 2007

The purpose of this study was to assess the background color-interceptive ability ana opacity of opaque shade composites (Universal composite, Filtek Z350, Charisma, Clearfil ST, Palpaque Estelite, Esthet-X, and Metafil Flo). Twenty four background specimens (diameter 5.5 mm, thickness 3.0 mm) with Root dentin Mustard (Bisco, Schaumburg, IL, USA) were made. The CIE $L^*a^*b^*$ value of background specimens was measured by a spectrophotometer (Spectrolino, GretagMacbeth, Regensdorf, Switzerland). Three specimens in every group were filled on the background specimens. The surface color of samples was measured by a spectrophotometer in 3.0 mm and every thickness to 0.5 mm while grinding. The color difference in the background color along with 3.0 mm specimen gauged the masking effect in each thickness while grinding and polishing. The opacity was calculated in 1 mm thick specimens. The opacity was in the decreasing order of Clearfil ST, Metafil Flo, Filtek Z350, Palpaque Estelite, Universal composite, Charisma, and Esthet-X (p < 0.05). As the thickness get reduced, $L^*$ value showed decreasing, $a^*$ increasing tendency. The surface color difference between pair of the 3.0 mm thick specimen and after grinding in same opaque resin was above 3.3 except Clearfil ST and Metafil Flo. The color difference (${\Delta}E^*$) between pair of background specimen and opaque resin built-up specimen showed more than 10.0 regardless kinds and thickness. The variance in opacity characteristics and color of the opaque composites is dependent upon manufacturer. When using the opaque resin, the optical properties of each material must be considered as well as cavity.