Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2012; 06(01): 001-008
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1698924
Original Article
Dental Investigation Society

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

Haktan Yurdaguven
1   Department of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Yeditepe University
,
Arzu Aykor
1   Department of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Yeditepe University
,
Emre Ozel
2   Department of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Kocaeli
,
Hilmi Sabuncu
3   Department of Basic Medical Sciences, Yeditepe University, Istanbul
,
Mubin Soyman
1   Department of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Yeditepe University
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
30 September 2019 (online)

Also available at
  PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Objective: 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)

Key words

Prophylaxis paste - surface roughness - composite - enamel - dentin - porcelain
 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Lutz F, Sener B, Imfeld T, Barbakow F, Schupbach P. Comparison of the efficacy of prophylaxis pastes with conventional abrasives or a new self-adjusting abrasive. Quintessence Int 1993;24:193-201.
  • 2 Barbakow F, Lutz F, Imfeld T. Relative dentin abrasion by dentifrices and prophylaxis pastes: Implications for clinicians, manufacturers and patients. Quintessence Int 1987;18:29-34.
  • 3 Neme AL, Wagner WC, Pink FE, Frazier KB. The effect of prophylactic polishing pastes and toothbrushing on the surface roughness of resin composite materials in vitro. Oper Dent 2003;28:808-815.
  • 4 Lutz F, Sener B, Imfeld T, Barbakow F, Schupbach P. Selfadjusting abrasiveness: a new technology for prophylaxis pastes. Quintessence Int 1993;24:53-63.
  • 5 Goldstein RE, Garber DA, Schwartz CG, Goldstein CE. Patient maintenance of esthetic restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 1992;123:61-67.
  • 6 Tanoue N, Matsumura H, Atsuta M. Wear and surface roughness of current prosthetic composites after toothbrush/ dentifrice abrasion. J Prosthet Dent 2000;84:93-97.
  • 7 Nash LB. Maximizing aesthetic restorations: the hygienist's role. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 1991;3:17-18.
  • 8 Nash LB. The role of the dental hygienist in caring for cosmetic-esthetic restorations. Dent Econ 1994;84:62-63.
  • 9 Shintani H, Satou J, Satou N, Hayashihara H, Inoue T. Effects of various finishing methods on staining and accumulation of Streptococcus mutans HS-6 on composite resins. Dent Mater 1985;1:225-227.
  • 10 Dunkin RT, Chambers DW. Gingival response to Class V composite restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 1983;106:482-484.
  • 11 Neme AL, Frazier KB, Roeder LB, Debner TL. Effect of prophylactic polishing protocols on the surface roughness of esthetic restorative materials. Oper Dent 2002;27:50-58.
  • 12 Christensen RP, Bangerter VW. Immediate and long-term in vivo effects of polishing on enamel and dentin. J Prosthet Dent 1987;57:150-160.
  • 13 Maalhagh-Fard A, Wagner WC, Pink FE, Neme AM. Evaluation of surface finish and polish of eight provisional restorative materials using acrylic bur and abrasive disk with and without pumice. Oper Dent 2003;28:734-739.
  • 14 Yap AUJ, Wu SS, Chelvan S, Tan ESF. Effect of hygiene maintenance procedures on surface roughness of composite restoratives. Oper Dent 2005;30:99-104.
  • 15 Wu SS, Yap AU, Chelvan S, Tan ES. Effect of prophylaxis regimens on surface roughness of glass ionomer cements. Oper Dent 2005;30:180-184.
  • 16 Yap AU, Yap SH, Teo CK, Ng JJ. Comparison of surface finish of new aesthetic restorative materials. Oper Dent 2004;29:100-104.
  • 17 Quirynen M, Marechal M, Busscher HJ, Weerkamp AH, Darius PL, van teenberghe D. The influence of surface free energy and surface roughness on early plaque formation. An in vivo study in man. J Clin Periodontol 1990;17:138-144.
  • 18 Quirynen M, Bollen CM. The influence of surface roughness and surface-free energy on supra- and subgingival plaque formation in man. A review of the literature. J Clin Periodontol 1995;22:1-14.
  • 19 Turkun LS, Turkun M. The effect of one-step polishing system on the surface roughness of three esthetic resin composite materials. Oper Dent 2004;29:203-211.
  • 20 Turssi CP, Ferracane JL, Serra MC. Abrasive wear of resin composites as related to finishing and polishing procedures. Dent Mater 2005;21:641-648.
  • 21 Roulet JF, Roulet-Mehrens TK. The surface roughness of restorative materials and dental tissues after polishing with prophylaxis and polishing pastes. J Periodontol 1982;53:257-266.
  • 22 Serio FG, Strassler HE, Litkowski LJ, Moffitt WC, Krupa CM. The effect of polishing pastes on composite resin surfaces, A SEM study. J Periodontol 1988;59:837-840.
  • 23 Bayne SC, Taylor DF, Heymann HO. Protection hypothesis for composite wear. Dent Mater 1992;8:305-309.
  • 24 Technical product profile 3M ESPE Filtek Supreme universal restorative system Dental Products Laboratory, St. Paul, MN, USA.
  • 25 Bollen, 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;13:258-269.
  • 26 Setcos JC, Tarim B, Suzuki S. Surface finish produced on resin composites by new polishing systems. Quintessence Int 1999;30:169-173.
  • 27 Jung M, Bruegger H, Klimek J. Surface geometry of three packable and one hybrid composite after polishing. Oper Dent 2003;28:816-824.