Surface Roughness Evaluation of Resin Composites after Finishing and Polishing Using 3D-Profilometry
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of two finishing and polishing methods on the surface roughness of different resin composites. Twenty-two disk-shaped specimens of five resin composites Zirconfill® (ZF), Filtek™ Supreme XTE (FS), Brilliant EverGlow™ (BG), Ceram.X® Duo (CD), and H...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2023-01-01
|
| Series: | International Journal of Dentistry |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2023/4078788 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850222747330805760 |
|---|---|
| author | Alexandra Vinagre Catarina Barros Joana Gonçalves Ana Messias Filipe Oliveira João Ramos |
| author_facet | Alexandra Vinagre Catarina Barros Joana Gonçalves Ana Messias Filipe Oliveira João Ramos |
| author_sort | Alexandra Vinagre |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of two finishing and polishing methods on the surface roughness of different resin composites. Twenty-two disk-shaped specimens of five resin composites Zirconfill® (ZF), Filtek™ Supreme XTE (FS), Brilliant EverGlow™ (BG), Ceram.X® Duo (CD), and Harmonize™ (HA) were prepared for each one using a silicon mold. Both surfaces of each specimen were first grinded with 600-grit silicon carbide paper in a moistened environment. The polishing methods used included the two-step Enhance® and PoGo® polishing system (E/P) or the four-step SwissFlex® discs (SFD). Surface roughness was evaluated using a noncontact 3D-optical profilometer. Surface morphology was examined by scanning electron microscopy. Data were analyzed using two-way analysis of variance and pairwise comparisons with Tukey’s test (α=0.050). Surface roughness was affected by both the type of resin composite (p<0.001) and the finishing and polishing system (p<0.001), with a significant interaction between these two factors (p=0.025). The E/P system produced smoother surfaces than the SFD system (p<0.001). For the E/P system, the highest mean roughness value was obtained with ZF and was statistically different from all other composites, whereas inhomogeneous results among resin composites could be found for the SFD system. Surface roughness was material-dependent, and the polishability of the resin composites was best accomplished using the E/P system. Within each F/P system studied, BG showed the lowest average surface roughness and ZF registered the highest. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-6fa273950ab84792be7c95a80e88e5be |
| institution | OA Journals |
| issn | 1687-8736 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2023-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | International Journal of Dentistry |
| spelling | doaj-art-6fa273950ab84792be7c95a80e88e5be2025-08-20T02:06:13ZengWileyInternational Journal of Dentistry1687-87362023-01-01202310.1155/2023/4078788Surface Roughness Evaluation of Resin Composites after Finishing and Polishing Using 3D-ProfilometryAlexandra Vinagre0Catarina Barros1Joana Gonçalves2Ana Messias3Filipe Oliveira4João Ramos5Institute of Operative DentistryInstitute of Operative DentistryInstitute of Operative DentistryInstitute of Oral Implantology and ProsthodonticsCICECO -Aveiro Institute of MaterialsInstitute of Operative DentistryThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of two finishing and polishing methods on the surface roughness of different resin composites. Twenty-two disk-shaped specimens of five resin composites Zirconfill® (ZF), Filtek™ Supreme XTE (FS), Brilliant EverGlow™ (BG), Ceram.X® Duo (CD), and Harmonize™ (HA) were prepared for each one using a silicon mold. Both surfaces of each specimen were first grinded with 600-grit silicon carbide paper in a moistened environment. The polishing methods used included the two-step Enhance® and PoGo® polishing system (E/P) or the four-step SwissFlex® discs (SFD). Surface roughness was evaluated using a noncontact 3D-optical profilometer. Surface morphology was examined by scanning electron microscopy. Data were analyzed using two-way analysis of variance and pairwise comparisons with Tukey’s test (α=0.050). Surface roughness was affected by both the type of resin composite (p<0.001) and the finishing and polishing system (p<0.001), with a significant interaction between these two factors (p=0.025). The E/P system produced smoother surfaces than the SFD system (p<0.001). For the E/P system, the highest mean roughness value was obtained with ZF and was statistically different from all other composites, whereas inhomogeneous results among resin composites could be found for the SFD system. Surface roughness was material-dependent, and the polishability of the resin composites was best accomplished using the E/P system. Within each F/P system studied, BG showed the lowest average surface roughness and ZF registered the highest.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2023/4078788 |
| spellingShingle | Alexandra Vinagre Catarina Barros Joana Gonçalves Ana Messias Filipe Oliveira João Ramos Surface Roughness Evaluation of Resin Composites after Finishing and Polishing Using 3D-Profilometry International Journal of Dentistry |
| title | Surface Roughness Evaluation of Resin Composites after Finishing and Polishing Using 3D-Profilometry |
| title_full | Surface Roughness Evaluation of Resin Composites after Finishing and Polishing Using 3D-Profilometry |
| title_fullStr | Surface Roughness Evaluation of Resin Composites after Finishing and Polishing Using 3D-Profilometry |
| title_full_unstemmed | Surface Roughness Evaluation of Resin Composites after Finishing and Polishing Using 3D-Profilometry |
| title_short | Surface Roughness Evaluation of Resin Composites after Finishing and Polishing Using 3D-Profilometry |
| title_sort | surface roughness evaluation of resin composites after finishing and polishing using 3d profilometry |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2023/4078788 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT alexandravinagre surfaceroughnessevaluationofresincompositesafterfinishingandpolishingusing3dprofilometry AT catarinabarros surfaceroughnessevaluationofresincompositesafterfinishingandpolishingusing3dprofilometry AT joanagoncalves surfaceroughnessevaluationofresincompositesafterfinishingandpolishingusing3dprofilometry AT anamessias surfaceroughnessevaluationofresincompositesafterfinishingandpolishingusing3dprofilometry AT filipeoliveira surfaceroughnessevaluationofresincompositesafterfinishingandpolishingusing3dprofilometry AT joaoramos surfaceroughnessevaluationofresincompositesafterfinishingandpolishingusing3dprofilometry |