Effect of Surface Sealants and Polishing Time on Composite Surface Roughness and Microhardness

2018 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 408-415 ◽  
Author(s):  
VC Ruschel ◽  
VS Bona ◽  
LN Baratieri ◽  
HP Maia
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Composite Surface ◽  
Force Microscopy ◽  
Atomic Force ◽  
Surface Sealants ◽  
Post Hoc ◽  
Surface Sealant ◽  
Effect Of Surface

SUMMARY The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of surface sealants and polishing delay time on a nanohybrid resin composite roughness and microhardness. Eighty disc specimens were made with a nanohybrid resin (Esthet-X HD, Dentsply). The specimens were divided into two groups (n=40) according to polishing time: immediate, after 10 minutes; delayed, after 48 hours. Each group was subdivided into four groups (n=10), according to the surface treatment: CG, control–rubber points (Jiffy Polishers, Ultradent); PP, rubber points + surface sealant (PermaSeal, Ultradent); PF, rubber points + surface sealant (Fortify, Bisco); PB, rubber points + surface sealant (BisCover, Bisco). Surface roughness (Ra) and microhardness (50 g/15 seconds) were measured. Surface morphology was analyzed by scanning electron microscopy and atomic force microscopy. The data were analyzed statistically using one-way analysis of variance and the Games-Howell post hoc test (α=0.05). PermaSeal roughness (G2) in the delayed polishing group was significantly higher (p=0.00) than that of the other groups. No difference was observed among the groups between immediate and delayed polishing (p=1.00), except for PermaSeal (p=0.00). Moreover, PermaSeal showed the lowest microhardness values (p=0.00) for immediate polishing. Microhardness was higher at delayed polishing for all the surface treatments (p=0.00) except Fortify (p=0.73). Surface smoothness similar to polishing with rubber points was achieved when surface sealants were used, except for PermaSeal surface sealant, which resulted in a less smooth resin composite surface. However, surface sealant application did not significantly improve composite resin microhardness.

Effect of surface sealant on surface roughness and bacterial adhesion of bulk-fill composites

2021 ◽  
pp. 096739112110055
Author(s):  
Gunce Ozan ◽  
Meltem Mert Eren ◽  
Cansu Vatansever ◽  
Ugur Erdemir
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Bacterial Adhesion ◽  
Confocal Laser ◽  
High Caries Risk ◽  
Two Samples ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Surface Sealants ◽  
Surface Sealant ◽  
Effect Of Surface

Surface sealants are reported to ensure surface smoothness and improve the surface quality of composite restorations. These sealants should also reduce the bacterial adhesion on composite surfaces however, there is not much information regarding their performance on bulk-fill composite materials. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of surface sealant application on surface roughness and bacterial adhesion of various restorative materials. Disc-shaped samples were prepared from a compomer, a conventional composite and three bulk-fill composites. Specimens of each group were divided into two groups (n = 9): with/without surface sealant (Biscover LV, [BLV]). Surface roughness values were examined by profilometry and two samples of each group were examined for bacterial adhesion on a confocal laser scanning microscope (CLSM). Bacterial counts were calculated by both broth cultivation and microscopic images. Results were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Bonferroni/Dunn tests. Following the BLV application, there was a decrease in the surface roughness values of all groups however, only Tetric N-Ceram Bulk and Beautifil-Bulk groups showed significantly smoother surfaces (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences among material groups without BLV application. Evaluating bacterial adhesion after BLV application, conventional composite had the lowest values among all followed by the compomer group. Beautifil-Bulk had significantly the highest bacterial adhesion (p < 0.05), followed by Tetric N-Ceram Bulk group. Without BLV application, there was no significant difference among bacterial adhesion values of groups (p > 0.05). CLSM images showed cell viability in groups. Bulk-fill composites showed higher bacterial adhesion than conventional composite and compomer materials. The surface sealant was found to be highly effective in lowering bacterial adhesion, but not so superior in smoothing the surfaces of restorative materials. So, surface sealants could be used on the restorations of patients with high caries risk.

Effect of Surface Chemistry on Ruthenium Wet Etching

2021 ◽  
Vol 314 ◽  
pp. 302-306
Author(s):  
Quoc Toan Le ◽  
E. Kesters ◽  
M. Doms ◽  
Efrain Altamirano Sánchez
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Photoelectron Spectroscopy ◽  
Etching Rate ◽  
Wet Etching ◽  
X Ray ◽  
Force Microscopy ◽  
Metal Free ◽  
Atomic Force ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Effect Of Surface

Different types of ALD Ru films, including as-deposited, annealed Ru, without and with a subsequent CMP step, were used for wet etching study. With respect to the as-deposited Ru, the etching rate of the annealed Ru film in metal-free chemical mixtures (pH = 7-9) was found to decrease substantially. X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy characterization indicated that this behavior could be explained by the presence of the formation of RuOx (x = 2,3) caused by the anneal. A short CMP step applied to the annealed Ru wafer removed the surface RuOx, at least partially, resulting in a significant increase of the etching rate. The change in surface roughness was quantified using atomic force microscopy.

scholarly journals The Effects of Surface Roughness of Composite Resin on Biofilm Formation of Streptococcus mutans in the Presence of Saliva

2012 ◽  
Vol 37 (5) ◽  
pp. 532-539 ◽  
Author(s):  
JW Park ◽  
CW Song ◽  
JH Jung ◽  
SJ Ahn ◽  
JL Ferracane
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Silicon Carbide ◽  
Streptococcus Mutans ◽  
Biofilm Formation ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Fluid Phase ◽  
Confocal Laser ◽  
Carbohydrate Source ◽  
Effect Of Surface

SUMMARY The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of surface roughness of resin composite on biofilm formation of Streptococcus mutans in the presence of saliva. To provide uniform surface roughness on composites, disks were prepared by curing composite against 400-grit silicon carbide paper (SR400), 800-grit silicon carbide paper (SR800), or a glass slide (SRGlass). The surface roughness was examined using confocal laser microscopy. For biofilm formation, S. mutans was grown for 24 hours with each disk in a biofilm medium with either glucose or sucrose in the presence of fluid-phase or surface-adsorbed saliva. The adherent bacteria were quantified via enumeration of the total viable counts of bacteria. Biofilms were examined using scanning electron microscopy. This study showed that SR400 had deeper and larger, but fewer depressions than SR800. Compared to SRGlass and SR800, biofilm formation was significantly increased on SR400. In addition, the differences in the effect of surface roughness on the amount of biofilm formation were not significantly influenced by either the presence of saliva or the carbohydrate source. Considering that similar differences in surface roughness were observed between SR400 and SR800 and between SR800 and SRGlass, this study suggests that surface topography (size and depth of depressions) may play a more important role than surface roughness in biofilm formation of S. mutans.

The Effect of Finishing and Polishing Procedures on the Surface Roughness of Composite Resin Materials

2007 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nuray Attar
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Surface Groups ◽  
Average Roughness ◽  
Strip Surface ◽  
Polishing Procedures ◽  
Surface Sealant

Abstract Aims The aims of this study were to evaluate the effect of various finishing and polishing procedures on the surface roughness of six different composite resin materials (Artemis Enamel, TPH Spectrum, Filtek A–110, Filtek Supreme Enamel, Solitaire 2, and Filtek P–60) as well as to evaluate the effectiveness of the surface sealant application (BisCover) on the surface roughness after finishing and polishing procedures of tested composites. Methods and Materials Specimens (n=168) measuring 5 mm in diameter x 2 mm in thickness were fabricated in a plexiglass well covered with a Mylar strip using six composite resins. A control group of seven specimens of each material received no polishing after being cured under the Mylar strip. Twenty-one specimens for each composite were randomly divided among three finishing and polishing groups (n=7). Each group was polished using a different system: Carbide bur/Sof-Lex disc, Carbide bur/Enhance disc with polishing paste, and Carbide bur/Edenta composite finishing kit. The average surface roughness (Ra, ìm) of the control and treated specimens were measured with the Mitutoyo Surftest–402 Surface Roughness tester. After a surface sealant (BisCover) was applied to all treated specimens, according to manufacturer's instructions, the average roughness (Ra) was measured again. Results were statistically analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the post-hoc Scheffe's test at a p<0.05 significance level. Results Significant differences were found for the surface roughness (p<0.05) with interaction among composite resins and the finishing systems used (p<0.05). Enhance/Biscover finishing and polishing procedure surface was not significantly different from the Mylar strip surface groups (p>0.05). The Mylar strip group was not significantly different from the Sof-Lex/BisCover and Edenta/BisCover groups. The ranking of mean Ra values by materials was as follows: Filtek Supreme Enamel < Filtek A110 < TPH Spectrum < Artemis <Filtek P–60 < Solitaire 2. The ranking of mean Ra values by polishing systems was as follows: Enhance/BisCover < Mylar Strip < Sof-Lex/BisCover < Edenta/BisCover < Sof-Lex < Enhance < Edenta. Conclusion Smoother surfaces were recorded for the Enhance/BisCover and the Mylar strip-formed surface groups. The composite finishing kit Edenta significantly increased the Ra for all tested composites (p<0.05). But after finishing with Edenta, the use of a surface sealant (BisCover) significantly improved the surface smoothness of all tested composites (p<0.05). Use of BisCover surface sealant on anterior and posterior resin composite restorations after finishing and polishing procedures is recommended. Citation Attar N. The Effect of Finishing and Polishing Procedures on the Surface Roughness of Composite Resin Materials. J Contemp Dent Pract 2007 January;(8)1:027-035.

scholarly journals Comparative effect of three polishing systems on porcelain surface roughness after orthodontic bracket debonding and composite resin removal: An atomic force microscopy

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 223-229
Author(s):  
Faeze Qabel ◽  
Riehane Talaei ◽  
Saeedeh Saeedi ◽  
Raheb Ghorbani ◽  
Nazila Ameli
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Atomic Force Microscopy ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Orthodontic Bracket ◽  
Force Microscopy ◽  
Atomic Force ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Level Of Significance ◽  
One Way Anova

Purpose: Porcelain polishing after orthodontic bracket debonding and resin removal is imperative to eliminate surface roughness and minimize the risk of plaque accumulation, periodontal disease, and porcelain discoloration. This study aimed to assess the effect of three polishing systems on porcelain surface roughness after orthodontic bracket debonding. Materials and Methods: Thirty porcelain blocks were divided into three groups. Surface roughness of the samples was first measured using atomic force microscopy (AFM) and recorded as baseline. Orthodontic brackets were bonded to blocks by composite resin. After bracket debonding, resin remnants were removed by tungsten carbide bur. The blocks were then polished with Sof-Lex discs, Meisinger, and Jota porcelain polishing kit. Surface roughness was measured again using AFM. The Shapiro–Wilk test, one-way ANOVA, and Tukey’s post hoc test were used for data analysis through SPSS version 18.0. Level of significance was set at 5%. Results: The mean change in surface roughness after polishing with Jota kit (56.6 nm) was significantly greater than that compared to Sof-Lex discs (10.7 nm) (P = 0.003) and Meisinger kit (26.6 nm) (P = 0.024). The mean change in surface roughness was not significantly different between Sof-Lex and Meisinger groups. Surface roughness significantly increased in all three groups (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Meisinger polishing kit and Sof-Lex discs were not significantly different in terms of the resultant surface roughness. Thus, the conventional use of Sof-Lex discs seems to be more cost-effective due to their lower cost.

scholarly journals Effect of Dental Finishing Instruments on the Surface Roughness of Composite Resins as Elucidated by Atomic Force Microscopy

2008 ◽  
Vol 14 (5) ◽  
pp. 380-386 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Carolina Botta ◽  
Sillas Duarte ◽  
Pedro Iris Paulin Filho ◽  
Simoni Maria Gheno
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Contact Mode ◽  
Force Microscopy ◽  
Diamond Bur ◽  
Atomic Force ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Student’S T ◽  
Student’S T Test

AbstractRoughness increases significantly after finishing procedures. The aim of this study was to assess by the atomic force microscope (AFM) the effect of finishing instruments on the surface roughness of composite resins. A nanofiller composite resin (Filtek Supreme, 3M–F) and a microhybrid composite resin (Point 4, Kerr–P) were selected. The finishing procedures were done with a 30-blade carbide bur (C) and a 30-μm finishing diamond bur (D). Standardized specimens were produced and divided into six experimental groups (n= 4) according to (1) composite resin, (2) absence of finishing (Mylar matrix–M), and (3) finishing instrument (FM, PM, FC, FD, PC, PD). The mean surface roughness was evaluated by AFM in the contact mode. FM and PM groups were assessed statistically by the Student's T test, and FC, FD, PC, PD groups were submitted to variance analysis (ANOVA), both at 5% significance. The mean surface roughness values, in nanometers, were FM, 23.63 (b); FC, 283.88 (c); FD, 510.55 (d); PM, 12.52 (a); PC, 343.98 (c); PD, 531.64 (d). Microhybrid composite displayed less roughness than nanofiller composite in the absence of finishing procedures. The 30-blade carbide bur produced less roughness compared to the extra fine diamond bur.

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

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.

Effect of Surface Roughness on Crystal Size of Manganese Phosphate Coating of Carbon Steel

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (7) ◽  
pp. 4312-4317
Author(s):  
Ho-Young Kim ◽  
Young-Tai Noh ◽  
Jun-Hyuck Jeon ◽  
Young-Min Byoun ◽  
Ho-Sang Kang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Carbon Steel ◽  
Crystal Size ◽  
Coating Layer ◽  
Phosphate Coating ◽  
Force Microscopy ◽  
Atomic Force ◽  
Manganese Phosphate ◽  
Phosphate Coatings ◽  
Effect Of Surface

In this study, the correlation between surface roughness of carbon steel and crystal size of manganese phosphate coatings has been investigated. The microstructure and surface morphology of the coatings were analyzed by SEM, XRD. The surface roughness test was carried out in order to calculate Ra value by atomic force microscopy (AFM). Also, the tribology property of manganese phosphate coating was tested by ball-on disk. XRD showed that (Mn,Fe)5H2(PO4)4·4H2O in manganese phosphate coating layer was formed by the chemical reaction between manganese phosphate and elements in carbon steel. Also, (Mn,Fe)5H2(PO4)4 · 4H2O was observed to be formed in all manganese phosphate conversion coating. With regard to the effects of surface roughness on manganese phosphate coatings, it can be seen that there is an increase of the crystal size on manganese phosphate coating as the surface roughness of carbon steel decreased. The increase of crystal size by the surface roughness had effect on the tribology property and electrochemical property. It was approved that friction coefficient of manganese phosphate coating is remarkably improved as the surface roughness of carbon steel become rough.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document