These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Superficial roughness on composite surface, composite-enamel and composite-dentin junctions after different finishing and polishing procedures. Part II: roughness with diamond finishing and differences between enamel composite vs body composite.
    Author: Ferraris F, Conti A.
    Journal: Int J Esthet Dent; 2014; 9(2):184-204. PubMed ID: 24765626.
    Abstract:
    UNLABELLED: The following study asks three principle questions relative to composite finishing and composite polishing: 1) Will the superficial roughness of different restoration surfaces have different values, utilizing the same polishing system (multistep), after finishing with the tungsten carbide or diamond bur? 2) Under the same conditions of finishing and polishing sequences, will the composite surfaces (C), the composite-enamel (CE) and composite-dentin (CD) interfaces show different roughness values? 3) Will the surface roughness of composites of different translucency in the various phases of finishing and polishing, and on different interfaces, have different results? The null hypothesis is represented by the fact that there are no significant differences on roughness of composite restorations when polishing, after finishing with tungsten carbide or diamond burs. Furthermore, the null hypothesis is that there are no significant differences on roughness between polishing on composite surface, composite-enamel and composite-dentin interfaces, and finally there are no differences on roughness after finishing and polishing of two composite with different translucency. For the study, 56 class V cavities were prepared on extracted teeth. Restorations were done in nanofilled composite Filtek XTE (3M Espe) in a standard fashion, and then finished and polished. The 28 buccal cavities were restored on the surface with composite enamel and the 28 palatals with composite body. Finishing was done with fine toothing burs in tungsten carbide (16 blades) or fine grit diamond burs (46 μm), and made by the same manufacturer (Komet). The second phase of finishing was done with burs (with the same form as already mentioned) ultrafine toothing tungsten carbide (30 blades) or with extra and ultrafine grit diamond (25 and 8 μm). The polishing phase for both of the earlier sequences was done with the application of three rubber tips with decreasing abrasiveness and an application with a self-polishing brush. All measurements were taken from surfaces C, and interfaces CE and CD. Statistical analyses were carried out with c2 test (a = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: 1) There were no relevant differences of surface roughness on the different surfaces if the polishing was done after finishing with tungsten carbide or diamond burs. 2) Keeping the same sequence of finishing and polishing, a difference was noticed between C, CE and CD, where the latter showed greater roughness. 3) Analyzing the data in all the phases of finishing and polishing on every interface, it can be concluded that the composite enamel and the composite body did not show different levels of superficial roughness. The clinical relevance could be resumed as follows: no difference after polishing, which is preceded by tungsten carbide or diamond finishing burs. The less favorable interface to be polished is CD, compared to CE and C. Considering two composites with different translucency, no difference on roughness after finishing and polishing were detected.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]