Revista de Odontologia da UNESP
https://revodontolunesp.com.br/article/doi/10.1590/1807-2577.08715
Revista de Odontologia da UNESP
Original Article

Evaluation of the surface roughness of a nanofilled composite resin submitted to different smoothing and finishing techniques

Avaliação da rugosidade superficial de uma resina nanoparticulada submetida a diferentes técnicas de alisamento e finalização

Ansuj, Micheli Del Frari; Santos, Iuri Silveira dos; Marquezan, Marcela; Durand, Letícia Brandão; Pozzobon, Roselaine Terezinha

Downloads: 1
Views: 548

Abstract

Introduction: Controlling the surface smoothness characteristics of the composite resin when performing a direct restorative technique is one of the factors involved in achieving restorative success. Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the surface roughness of a nanofilled composite resin submitted to different smoothing and finishing techniques. Material and method: Fifty test specimens were made with the Z350 XT composite resin (3M ESPE) and then divided into five study groups according to the smoothing and finishing method applied, as follows: G1 (control), polyester strip; G2, composite spatula; G3, brush cleaned with absolute alcohol and dried; G4, brush cleaned with absolute alcohol, dried and moistened with Single Bond (3M ESPE); and G5, brush cleaned with absolute alcohol, dried and moistened with Natural Glaze surface sealant (DFL). After fabrication, the specimens were stored for 24 h in deionized water. The surface roughness of the specimens was measured using a profilometer. Surface roughness means were compared by analysis of variance followed by Tukey’s test at a level of significance of 5%. Result: The lowest surface roughness was observed in G1 (control group) and the highest, in G3. G5 had lower surface roughness values compared to the other test groups, and presented values similar to those of the control group. Conclusion: The smoothing and finishing techniques influenced the surface roughness of the composite resin. Application of the surface sealant by the copolymerization technique resulted in lower roughness values. The use of a clean, dry brush promoted roughness values beyond the acceptable limit, and is therefore liable to compromise the performance of composite resin restorations.

Keywords

Composite resins, dental materials, surface properties.

Resumo

Introdução: O controle da técnica restauradora direta com resina composta no que se refere às características de lisura superficial, é um dos fatores que deve ser considerado para o sucesso restaurador. Objetivo: O propósito deste estudo foi avaliar a rugosidade superficial de uma resina composta nanoparticulada submetida a diferentes técnicas de alisamento e finalização. Material e método: Cinquenta corpos de prova foram confeccionados utilizando a resina composta Z 350 XT (3M ESPE), divididos em cinco grupos sendo: G1 (controle): padrão tira de poliéster; G2: espátula para inserção de resina; G3 pincel limpo com álcool e seco; G4; pincel limpo com álcool, seco e umedecido com adesivo Single Bond (3M ESPE); e, G5: pincel limpo álcool, seco e umedecido com selante de superfície Natural Glaze (DFL). Após a confecção os corpos de prova foram estocados por 24 horas em água deionizada. A rugosidade superficial foi mensurada por meio de um rugosímetro de precisão. As médias foram comparadas por análise de variância, seguida do Teste de Tukey a 5% de significância. Resultado: A menor rugosidade superficial foi observada em G1 e a maior em G3 O grupo G5, apresentou valores de rugosidade superficial inferiores aos demais grupos testados e próximos ao grupo controle. Conclusão: As técnicas de alisamento e finalização influenciaram a rugosidade superficial da resina composta. O uso de selante resinoso, pela técnica de copolimerização, resultou em menor rugosidade e o emprego do pincel limpo e seco promoveu rugosidade, além do limite aceitável o que pode comprometer o desempenho de restaurações.

Palavras-chave

Resinas compostas, materiais dentários, propriedades de superfície.

References

1. Senawongse P, Pongprueksa P. Surface roughness of nanofill and nanohybrid resin composites after polishing and brushing. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2007;19(5):265-73, discussion 274-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.2007.00116.x. PMid:17877626.

2. Marghalani HY. Effect of filler particles on surface roughness of experimental composite series. J Appl Oral Sci. 2010 Jan-Feb;18(1):59-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1678-77572010000100011. PMid:20379683.

3. Bollenl 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 Jul;13(4):258-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(97)80038-3. PMid:11696906.

4. Venturini D, Cenci MS, Demarco FF, Camacho GB, Powers JM. Effect of polishing techniques and time on surface roughness, hardness and microleakage of resin composite restorations. Oper Dent. 2006 Jan-Feb;31(1):11-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.2341/04-155. PMid:16536188.

5. Beun S, Glorieux T, Devaux J, Vreven J, Leloup G. Characterization of nanofilled compared to universal and microfilled composites. Dent Mater. 2007 Jan;23(1):51-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2005.12.003. PMid:16423384.

6. Moraes RR, Ribeiro DS, Klumb MM, Brandt WC, Correr-Sobrinho L, Bueno M. In vitro toothbrushing abrasion of dental resin composites: packable, microhybrid, nanohybrid and microfilled materials. Braz Oral Res. 2008 Apr-Jun;22(2):112-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1806-83242008000200004. PMid:18622479.

7. Ergücü Z, Türkün LS, Aladag A. Color stability of nanocomposites polished with one-step systems. Oper Dent. 2008 Jul-Aug;33(4):413-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.2341/07-107. PMid:18666499.

8. Lopes GC, Vieira LC, Araujo E. Direct composite resin restorations: a review of some clinical procedures to achieve predictable results in posterior teeth. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2004;16(1):19-31, discussion 32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.2004.tb00446.x. PMid:15259540.

9. Cilli R, de Mattos MC, Honorio HM, Rios D, de Araujo PA, Prakki A. The role of surface sealants in the roughness of composites after a simulated toothbrushing test. J Dent. 2009 Dec;37(12):970-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2009.08.002. PMid:19686798.

10. Dickinson GL, Leinfelder KF, Mazer RB, Russell CM. Effect of surface penetrating sealant on wear rate of posterior composite resins. J Am Dent Assoc. 1990 Aug;121(2):251-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1990.0240. PMid:2144862.

11. Bertrand MF, Leforestier E, Muller M, Lupi-Pégurier L, Bolla M. Effect of surface penetrating sealant on surface texture and microhardness of composite resins. J Biomed Mater Res. 2000;53(6):658-63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1097-4636(2000)53:6<658::AID-JBM7>3.0.CO;2-O. PMid:11074424.

12. Santos PH, Pavan S, Suzuki TY, Briso AL, Assunção WG, Sinhoreti MA, et al. Effect of fluid resins on the surface roughness and topography of resin composite restorations analyzed by atomic force microscope. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2011 Apr;4(3):433-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2010.12.004. PMid:21316631.

13. Sadeghi M, Davari A, Lynch CD. The effect of re-bonding using surface sealant or adhesive system on microleakage of class V resin composite restorations. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2013 Sep-Oct;10(5):596-601. PMid:24348615.

14. Ergücü Z, Türkün LS. Surface roughness of novel resin composites polished with one-step systems. Oper Dent. 2007 Mar-Apr;32(2):185-92. http://dx.doi.org/10.2341/06-56. PMid:17427829.

15. Lu H, Roeder LB, Lei L, Powers JM. Effect of surface roughness on stain resistance of dental resin composites. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2005;17(2):102-8, discussion 109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.2005.tb00094.x. PMid:16036126.

16. Han JM, Zhang H, Choe HS, Lin H, Zheng G, Hong G. Abrasive wear and surface roughness of contemporary dental composite resin. Dent Mater J. 2014;33(6):725-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2013-339. PMid:25007731.

17. Oliveira GU, Mondelli RF, Rodrigues MC, Franco EB, Ishikiriama SK, Wang L. Impact of filler size and distribution on roughness and wear of composite resin after simulated toothbrushing. J Appl Oral Sci. 2012 Sep-Oct;20(5):510-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1678-77572012000500003. PMid:23138735.

18. Janus J, Fauxpoint G, Arntz Y, Pelletier H, Etienne O. Surface roughness and morphology of three nanocomposites after two different polishing treatments by a multitechnique approach. Dent Mater. 2010 May;26(5):416-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2009.09.014. PMid:20097415.

19. Nagem H Fo, D’Azevedo MT, Nagem HD, Marsola FP. Surface roughness of composite resins after finishing and polishing. Braz Dent J. 2003;14(1):37-41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0103-64402003000100007. PMid:12656463.

588019e17f8c9d0a098b539e rou Articles
Links & Downloads

Rev. odontol. UNESP

Share this page
Page Sections