Comparative study of the surface roughness of Ormocer-based and conventional composites

The aim of this study was to evaluate the surface roughness of two Ormocer-based resin composites before and after mechanical toothbrushing. The study compared the brands Admira and Definite with composites based on conventional monomer systems (Bis-GMA, Bis-EMA, UEDMA e TEGDMA), Z250 and A110. Eight samples of each material with 4mm in diameter and 2mm in height were prepared using a metallic mold. After 24 hours they were polished and examined with a profilometer for measurement of the initial surface roughness (Ra, mm) before mechanical toothbrushing (30,000 cycles). After toothbrushing, the samples were taken to the profilometer once again to check the final surface roughness. The results were submitted to ANOVA and Tukey test (5%). The Admira composite presented a higher mean of surface roughness before toothbrushing (0.132mm), with a statistical difference from the composite A110 (0.082mm). Definite (0.110mm) and Z250 (0.105mm) composites showed no differences between themselves or among the other composites. No statistical differences were observed after toothbrushing between the composites Definite (0.178mm), Z250 (0.187mm), Admira (0.181mm), and A110 (0.193mm). All composites showed a statistically significant increase in the surface roughness after toothbrushing.

Download Full-text

Influence of a prophylaxis paste on surface roughness of different composites, porcelain, enamel and dentin surfaces

European Journal of Dentistry ◽

10.1055/s-0039-1698924 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 06 (01) ◽

pp. 001-008 ◽

Cited By ~ 12

Author(s):

Haktan Yurdaguven ◽

Arzu Aykor ◽

Emre Ozel ◽

Hilmi Sabuncu ◽

Mubin Soyman

Keyword(s):

Surface Roughness ◽

The Other ◽

Wilcoxon Test ◽

Initial Surface ◽

Final Surface ◽

Multiple Comparison Test ◽

Diamond Polishing ◽

Significant Difference ◽

The Mean ◽

Roughness Measurements

ABSTRACTObjective: To investigate the effect of a prophylaxis paste on surface roughness of different composites, enamel, dentin and porcelain surfaces.Methods: Three different composites (FiltekZ250/Group1, Filtek Supreme XT/Group2, Premise/ Group3), enamel/Group4, dentin/Group5 and porcelain/Group6 samples were used in this study. All specimens were prepared flat by SiC discs and polished with a diamond polishing paste. The surface roughness measurements were determined with a profilometer after polishing (initial surface roughness). Prophylaxis paste was applied to the samples for 12 seconds, renewing every 6 seconds. After cleaning the samples, roughness values were measured again. Data were analyzed by Kruskal Wallis and Dunn’s multiple comparison test. Wilcoxon test was performed for the comparison of the initial and final surface roughness values (P<.05). The results were evaluated within the P<.05 confidence level.Results: The mean %SMHC was:C=77.27%, CL= 72.45%, SL=78.43%, G=66.65% and P=67.95%. Comparing the %SMHC promoted by 5 soft drinks, SL = C > CL > P = G (P<.05). There was not significant correlation between %SMHC and the other variables tested for the five drinks (P>>.05)Results: The initial and final surface roughness values (μm) were determined as follows: Group1: 0.039±0.009 and 0.157±0.018, Group2: 0.023±0.005 and 0.145±0.027, Group3: 0.028±0.008 and 0.109±0.012, Group4: 0.024±0.006 and 0.071±0.015, Group5: 0.030±0.007 and 0.143±0.029, Group6: 0.024±0.006 and 0.064±0.014. Significant difference was determined between the initial and final values for all groups.Conclusions: Composite and dentin surfaces were more affected by the application of prophylaxis paste than enamel and porcelain surfaces. The prophylaxis paste increased the surface roughness of all groups, but did not reach the bacterial retention roughness rate of 0.2μm. (Eur J Dent 2012;6:1-8)

Download Full-text

The Effects of Toothbrush Wear on the Surface Roughness and Gloss of Resin Composites with Various Types of Matrices

Dentistry Journal ◽

10.3390/dj9010008 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 9 (1) ◽

pp. 8

Author(s):

Murtadha AlAli ◽

Nikolaos Silikas ◽

Julian Satterthwaite

Keyword(s):

Surface Roughness ◽

Pairwise Comparisons ◽

Resin Composites ◽

Hybrid Resin ◽

Before And After ◽

Post Hoc ◽

Main Effects ◽

Toothbrush Wear

Objective: To evaluate and compare the surface roughness and gloss of a DMA-free composite and Bis-GMA-free composite with a DMA-based composite before and after toothbrushing simulation. Materials and Methods: Fifteen dimensionally standardised composite specimens of three nano-hybrid resin composites (Tetric EvoCeram, Admira Fusion, and Venus Diamond) were used. Five specimens from each composite were polished and then subjected to a toothbrushing simulator. Surface roughness (Ra) and gloss were measured before toothbrushing and after 5000, 10,000, 15,000, and 20,000 toothbrushing cycles. The data was analysed using 5 × 3 ANOVA to assess surface roughness and gloss values and pairwise comparisons in the form of Tukey post hoc tests were performed to interpret main effects. Results: For all tested materials, surface roughness increased, and gloss decreased after toothbrushing abrasion. Surface roughness (Ra) values ranged from 0.14 to 0.22 μm at baseline and increased to between 0.41 and 0.49 μm after 20,000 toothbrushing cycles. Gloss values ranged between 31.9 and 50.6 GU at baseline and between 5.1 and 19.5 GU after 20,000 toothbrushing cycles. The lowest initial Ra value was detected in Venus Diamond and the highest initial gloss value was detected in Tetric EvoCeram. Conclusions: Simulated toothbrushing abrasion led to an increase in surface roughness and a decrease in gloss for all tested materials. Venus Diamond had the smoothest surface and Tetric EvoCeram had the glossiest surface after polishing and following 20,000 cycles of toothbrushing abrasion. Admira Fusion demonstrated the roughest surface and had the lowest gloss values before and after toothbrushing abrasion.

Download Full-text

Effect of Toothbrushing-mouthrinse-cycling on Surface Roughness and Topography of Nanofilled, Microfilled, and Microhybrid Resin Composites

Operative Dentistry ◽

10.2341/13-199-l ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 39 (5) ◽

pp. 521-529 ◽

Cited By ~ 11

Author(s):

EM da Silva ◽

CUF de Sá Rodrigues ◽

DA Dias ◽

S da Silva ◽

CM Amaral ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Surface Roughness ◽

Resin Composite ◽

Artificial Saliva ◽

Filler Particle ◽

Three Dimensional ◽

Resin Composites ◽

Topographic Analysis ◽

Before And After ◽

Multifactor Analysis ◽

Post Hoc

SUMMARY The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of toothbrushing-mouthrinse-cycling (TMC) on the surface roughness and topography of three resin composites with different filler particle systems (Z350, nanofilled [Nf]; Durafill, microfilled [Mf], and Empress Direct, microhybrid [Mh]). Twenty specimens of each resin composite (8.0 mm diameter and 2 mm height) were randomly divided into four groups (n=5) according to the mouthrinses: alcohol-free (Plax – P) and alcohol-containing (Listerine – L and Plax Fresh Mint – PM) and artificial saliva (control – AS). The specimens were submitted to TMC for nine weeks. A surface roughness tester and a three-dimensional profilometer were used to measure the roughness (Ra) and the topography (Sa) before and after TMC. The data were analyzed by multifactor analysis of variance and Tukey post hoc test (α=0.05). In all media, Mh presented greater roughness than Mf (p<0.05). The highest value of roughness was presented by Mh immersed in L (p<0.05). The lowest values of roughness were presented by Mf (p<0.05). The three resin composites presented the highest roughness after immersion in mouthrinses containing alcohol (PM and L) (p<0.05). For the three resin composites, the increase in roughness was noticeable after the fifth week. Topographic analysis showed that the smoothest surfaces were present after immersion in AS.

Download Full-text

Effect of Low Shrinkage Monomers on Physicochemical Properties of Dental Resin Composites

Brazilian Dental Journal ◽

10.1590/0103-6440201300401 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 26 (3) ◽

pp. 272-276 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Dayane Carvalho Ramos Salles de Oliveira ◽

Karla Rovaris ◽

Viviane Hass ◽

Eduardo José Souza-Júnior ◽

Francisco Haiter-Neto ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Flexural Strength ◽

Physicochemical Properties ◽

Statistical Difference ◽

Resin Composite ◽

Multiple Comparisons ◽

Resin Composites ◽

Dental Resin ◽

Tukey Test ◽

Dental Resin Composites ◽

One Way Anova

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of low shrinkage monomers on physicochemical properties of dental resin composites. Two low shrinkage resin composites: one with a crosslink branching monomer (Kalore, GC Corp) and a novel monomer (Venus Diamond, Heraeus Kulzer) were compared to a conventional resin composite formulation (Filtek Z250, 3M/ESPE). The volumetric shrinkage was evaluated by µCT analysis (n=5) and the physicochemical properties by degree of C=C conversion (DC), flexural strength (FS) and Young's modulus (YM) (n=10). All samples were light cured by a LED device (Radii, SDI) with 16 J/cm2. The results were analysed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey test for multiple comparisons (α=0.05). No statistical difference was found between µCT shrinkage values to Kalore (1.8%) and Venus Diamond (1.7%) (p≥0.05); Z250 presented statistical highest shrinkage value (2.0%). Kalore presented higher statistical DC (60.8%) than Venus Diamond (49.5%) and Z250 (49.6%). No statistical difference was found between FS or YM properties to Venus Diamond and Z250; Kalore presented statistical lowest FS and YM properties (p≥0.05). Conclusion: Using novel monomers seem to reduce polymerization shrinkage without affecting the physicochemical properties evaluated of resin composites rather than using crosslink branching monomers.

Download Full-text

Surface roughness of composite resins after finishing and polishing

Brazilian Dental Journal ◽

10.1590/s0103-64402003000100007 ◽

2003 ◽

Vol 14 (1) ◽

pp. 37-41 ◽

Cited By ~ 36

Author(s):

Halim Nagem Filho ◽

Maria Tereza Fortes Soares D'Azevedo ◽

Haline Drumond Nagem ◽

Fernanda Pátaro Marsola

Keyword(s):

Surface Roughness ◽

Aluminum Oxide ◽

Statistical Difference ◽

Composite Resins ◽

Surface Finishing ◽

Resin Composites ◽

Average Surface Roughness ◽

Average Roughness ◽

Average Surface ◽

Effect Of Surface

This study evaluated the effect of surface finishing methods on the average surface roughness of resin composites. Seven composites and two polishing systems were used. One hundred and twenty-six conical specimens of each material were prepared in stainless steel molds against a polyester strip. Forty-two of them remained intact and were used as controls. Each half of the remaining samples was polished with either diamond burs or diamond burs + aluminum oxide discs. The results showed no statistical difference in average surface roughness (Ra, µm) between the polyester strip and aluminum oxide discs (p>0.05). However, finishing with diamond burs showed a statistically higher average roughness for all composites (p<0.05). Statistical differences were detected among materials (p<0.05) in the use of diamond burs.

Download Full-text

Bacterial Adhesion on Lithium Disilicate Ceramic Surface Exposed to Different Hydrofluoric Solutions

Ceramics ◽

10.3390/ceramics1010013 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 1 (1) ◽

pp. 145-152

Author(s):

Daniela Santos ◽

Emily Silva ◽

Adaias Matos ◽

Beatriz Monteiro ◽

Rodrigo Medeiros ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Surface Roughness ◽

Bacterial Adhesion ◽

Artificial Saliva ◽

Lithium Disilicate ◽

The Other ◽

Ceramic Surface ◽

Streptococcus Sanguinis ◽

Before And After ◽

Major Surface ◽

Ceramic Restorations

The effect of Fluorine solutions on the surface and bacterial adhesion of lithium disilicate is a concern. The aim was to evaluate the surface roughness and the adhesion of Streptococcus sanguinis on lithium disilicate ceramic, under the influence of different solutions containing Fluorine. Forty lithium disilicate (IPS e.max Press Impulse) discs (2.5 × 5 mm) was divided into 4 groups (n = 10): artificial saliva (Group AS), 0.2% sodium fluoride (Group NaF), 1.23% acidulated phosphate fluoride gel (Group APF), and mouthwash (Group MW). Roughness analyses were performed before and after the immersion. The surface aspect was evaluated by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and the adhesion of Streptococcus sanguinis were evaluated after immersion in the solutions. The data obtained were submitted to the analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Tukey test (α = 0.05). The Group APF presented a bigger roughness (3.263), statistically different to the other solutions. The bacterial adhesion in the Group APF (5.85) presented statistical difference to the other solutions. The SEM micrographs showed a rougher surface in Group APF. The 1.23% APF gel promoted major surface roughness and bacterial adhesion and could be inadequate for the use of patients with lithium disilicate ceramic restorations. Clinical significance: The Fluorine solution can affect the lithium disilicate ceramics, generating a rough and non-esthetic surface. This altered surface could be susceptible to bacterial adhesion, being directly related with periodontal health, the longevity of the restoration and the success of the rehabilitation.

Download Full-text

Influence of Polishing Systems on Surface Roughness of Composite Resins: Polishability of Composite Resins

Operative Dentistry ◽

10.2341/17-140-l ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 44 (3) ◽

pp. E122-E132 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

L St-Pierre ◽

C Martel ◽

H Crépeau ◽

MA Vargas

Keyword(s):

Surface Roughness ◽

In Vitro Study ◽

Threshold Value ◽

Lower Surface ◽

Composite Resins ◽

Initial Surface ◽

Final Surface ◽

Significant Difference ◽

One Step

SUMMARY Objectives: The objective of this in vitro study was to compare, with a threshold value of 200 nm, the surface roughness obtained when using 12 different polishing systems on four different composite resins (microfill, nanofill, and two nanohybrids). Methods and Materials: A total of 384 convex specimens were made using Durafill VS, Filtek Supreme Ultra, Grandio SO, and Venus Pearl. After sandblasting and finishing with a medium-grit finishing disc, initial surface roughness was measured using a surface roughness tester. Specimens were polished using 12 different polishing systems: Astropol, HiLuster Plus, D♦Fine, Diacomp, ET Illustra, Sof-Lex Wheels, Sof-Lex XT discs, Super-Snap, Enhance/Pogo, Optrapol, OneGloss and ComposiPro Brush (n=8). The final surface roughness was measured, and data were analyzed using two-way analysis of variance. Pairwise comparisons were made using protected Fisher least significant difference. Results: There were statistical differences in the final surface roughness between polishing systems and between composite resins (p<0.05). The highest surface roughness was observed for all composite resins polished with OneGloss and ComposiPro Brush. Enhance/Pogo and Sof-Lex Wheels produced a mean surface roughness greater than the 200-nm threshold on Filtek Supreme Ultra, Grandio SO, and Venus Pearl. Data showed that there was an interaction between the composite resins and the polishing systems. Conclusions: A single polishing system does not perform equally with all composite resins. Except for Optrapol, multi-step polishing systems performed generally better than one-step systems. Excluding Enhance/Pogo, diamond-impregnated polishers led to lower surface roughness. Durafill VS, a microfill composite resin, may be polished more predictably with different polishers.

Download Full-text

The Influence of Initial Commutator Surface Roughness on Wear of the Starter Motor Commutation System

Advanced Materials Research ◽

10.4028/www.scientific.net/amr.966-967.96 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 966-967 ◽

pp. 96-102

Author(s):

Tanja Spremberg ◽

Ingo Engler ◽

Berend Denkena

Keyword(s):

Surface Roughness ◽

Steady State ◽

Mechanical Load ◽

Life Time ◽

The Other ◽

Initial Surface ◽

Test Rig ◽

Starter Motor ◽

Tribological System ◽

Load Tests

One way to improve the run-in period of the commutation system of an electrical motor is the modification of the commutator ́s roughness. The reduction of the run-in period affects the wear during the motor life time. Therefore, within this paper the influence of the initial commutator roughness on the run-in period and the electromechanical wear is investigated. The research is done with a special starter components test rig. During the tests the wear is analyzed while the applied electromechanical and mechanical load is varied in order to enforce different wear behaviors. It is expected that with an optimal initial surface roughness the amount of wear is reduced until the steady state has been reached. However, the results revealed that there is no significant influence of the initial surface roughness on the examined electromechanical tribological system. It was found, that the mechanical wear of the commutator and the brushes is similar to the electromechanical wear during the run-in period. The run-in period of the mechanical load tests is shorter compared to the other experiments.

Download Full-text

Fluorescence Intensity of Resin Composites and Dental Tissues Before and After Accelerated Aging: A Comparative Study

Operative Dentistry ◽

10.2341/07-74 ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 33 (2) ◽

pp. 189-195 ◽

Cited By ~ 29

Author(s):

M. K. Takahashi ◽

S. Vieira ◽

R. N. Rached ◽

J. B. Almeida ◽

M. Aguiar ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Optical Properties ◽

Comparative Study ◽

Fluorescence Intensity ◽

Clinical Relevance ◽

Accelerated Aging ◽

Resin Composites ◽

Dental Tissues ◽

Human Enamel ◽

Restorative Materials ◽

Before And After

Clinical Relevance Fluorescence is one of the optical properties of resin composites and dental tissues that is of great interest today. The fluorescence intensity of restorative materials should be as close as possible to that of human enamel and dentin to ensure an acceptable reproduction of these qualities in esthetic restorations.

Download Full-text

Composite resin for restoration of a posterior tooth and polishing: clinical case report

ARCHIVES OF HEALTH INVESTIGATION ◽

10.21270/archi.v8i4.3214 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 8 (4) ◽

Author(s):

Frederico dos Reis Goyatá ◽

Sávio Morato de Lacerda Gontijo ◽

José Alcides Almeida de Arruda ◽

João Batista Novaes Júnior ◽

Ivan Doche Barreiros ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Surface Roughness ◽

Atomic Force Microscopy ◽

Composite Resin ◽

Composite Resins ◽

Resin Composites ◽

Posterior Teeth ◽

Force Microscopy ◽

Atomic Force ◽

Amalgam Restoration ◽

Before And After

The aim of the present report was to describe a case of direct composite resin restoration in tooth 46, with emphasis on the importance of polishing. A 21-year-old female patient dissatisfied with the aesthetic amalgam restoration of her tooth 46 came to the our institution for correction of the situation. The procedure performed consisted of registration of occlusal contacts, selection of resin color, removal of amalgam restoration, coronal reconstruction with composite resin, occlusal adjustment, finishing and polishing, with the use of atomic force microscopy of the resin before and after polishing. A correct clinical protocol for the posterior composite resins is fundamental for the optimization of aesthetic results, for clinical performance and for consequent restorative longevity. The atomic force microscopy images of the resin used before and after polishing emphasize the necessity and clinical importance of this operative step.Descriptors: Dental Materials; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Dental Polishing; Microscopy.ReferencesFrese C, Staehle HJ, Wolff D. The assessment of dentofacial esthetics in restorative dentistry: a review of the literature. J Am Dent Assoc. 2012;143(5):461-66.Moraschini V, Fai CK, Alto RM, dos Santos GO. Amalgam and resin composite longevity of posterior restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2015;43(9):1043-50.Kovarik RE. Restoration of posterior teeth in clinical practice: evidence base for choosing amalgam versus composite. Dent Clin North Am. 2009;53(1):71-6.Kanzow P, Wiegand A, Schwendicke F. Cost-effectiveness of repairing versus replacing composite or amalgam restorations. J Dent. 2016;54:41-7.Lynch CD, Opdam NJ, Hickel R, Brunton PA, Gurgan S, Kakaboura A, et al. Guidance on posterior resin composites: Academy of Operative Dentistry - European Section. J Dent. 2014;42(4):377-83.Fernández E, Martín J, Vildósola P, Oliveira Junior OB, Gordan V, Mjor I et al. Can repair increase the longevity of composite resins? Results of a 10-year clinical trial. J Dent. 2015;43(2):279-86.Sabbagh J, McConnell RJ, McConnell MC. Posterior composites: Update on cavities and filling techniques. J Dent. 2017;57:86-90.Constantinescu DM, Apostol DA, Picu CR, Krawczyk K, Sieberer M. Mechanical properties of epoxy nanocomposites reinforced with functionalized silica nanoparticles. Proc Struct Integ. 2017;5:647-52.Yadav RD, Raisingani D, Jindal D, Mathur R. A comparative analysis of different finishing and polishing devices on nanofilled, microfilled, and hybrid composite: a scanning electron microscopy and profilometric study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2016;9(3):201-8.Fernandes ACBCJ, Assunção IV, Borges BCD, Costa GFA. Impact of additional polishing on the roughness and surface morphology of dental composite resins. Rev Port Estomatol Med Dent Cirur Maxilofac. 2016;57(2):74-81.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(Suppl 1):e9-17.Kumari CM, Bhat KM, Bansal R. Evaluation of surface roughness of different restorative composites after polishing using atomic force microscopy. J Conserv Dent. 2016;19(1):56-62.Pimentel PEZ, Goyatá FR, Cunha LG. Influência da técnica de polimento na lisura superficial de resinas compostas. Clin int j braz dent. 2012;8(2):226-34.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):166-70.Lins FC, Ferreira RC, Silveira RR, Pereira CN, Moreira AN, Magalhaes CS. Surface roughness, microhardness, and microleakage of a silorane-based composite resin after immediate or delayed finishing/polishing. Int J Dent. 2016;2016:8346782.

Download Full-text