Effect of prophylactic polishing protocols on the surface roughness of esthetic restorative materials

A. L. Neme, K. B. Frazier, L. B. Roeder, T. L. Debner

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

43 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Many polishing protocols have been evaluated in vitro for their effect on the surface roughness of restorative materials. These results have been useful in establishing protocols for in vivo application. However, limited research has focused on the subsequent care and maintenance of esthetic restorations following their placement. This investigation evaluated the effect of five polishing protocols that could be implemented at recall on the surface roughness of five direct esthetic restorative materials. Specimens (n=25) measuring 8 mm diameter X 3 mm thick were fabricated in an acrylic mold using five light-cured resin-based materials (hybrid composite, microfilled composite, packable composite, compomer and resin-modified glass ionomer). After photopolymerization, all specimens were polished with Sof-Lex Disks to produce an initial (baseline) surface finish. All specimens were then polished with one of five prophylactic protocols (Butler medium paste, Butler coarse paste, OneGloss, SuperBuff or OneGloss & SuperBuff). The average surface roughness of each treated specimen was determined from three measurements with a profilometer (Surface 1). Next, all specimens were brushed 60,000 times at 1.5 Hz using a brush-head force of 2 N on a Manly V-8 cross-brushing machine in a 50:50 (w/w) slurry of toothpaste and water. The surface roughness of each specimen was measured after brushing (Surface 2) followed by re-polishing with one of five protocols, then final surface roughness values were determined (Surface 3). The data were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA. Significant differences (p=0.05) in surface roughness were observed among restorative materials and polishing protocols. The microfilled and hybrid resin composite yielded significantly rougher surfaces than the other three materials following tooth brushing. Prophylactic polishing protocols can be used to restore a smooth surface on resin-based esthetic restorative materials following simulated tooth brushing.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)50-58
Number of pages9
JournalOperative dentistry
Volume27
Issue number1
StatePublished - Jan 1 2002

Fingerprint

Esthetics
Composite Resins
Ointments
Tooth
Compomers
Toothpastes
Analysis of Variance
Fungi
Head
Maintenance
Light
Water
Research
caN protocol

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Effect of prophylactic polishing protocols on the surface roughness of esthetic restorative materials. / Neme, A. L.; Frazier, K. B.; Roeder, L. B.; Debner, T. L.

In: Operative dentistry, Vol. 27, No. 1, 01.01.2002, p. 50-58.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{9b2c300f1ef9425a8da3374d75ec35ee,
title = "Effect of prophylactic polishing protocols on the surface roughness of esthetic restorative materials",
abstract = "Many polishing protocols have been evaluated in vitro for their effect on the surface roughness of restorative materials. These results have been useful in establishing protocols for in vivo application. However, limited research has focused on the subsequent care and maintenance of esthetic restorations following their placement. This investigation evaluated the effect of five polishing protocols that could be implemented at recall on the surface roughness of five direct esthetic restorative materials. Specimens (n=25) measuring 8 mm diameter X 3 mm thick were fabricated in an acrylic mold using five light-cured resin-based materials (hybrid composite, microfilled composite, packable composite, compomer and resin-modified glass ionomer). After photopolymerization, all specimens were polished with Sof-Lex Disks to produce an initial (baseline) surface finish. All specimens were then polished with one of five prophylactic protocols (Butler medium paste, Butler coarse paste, OneGloss, SuperBuff or OneGloss & SuperBuff). The average surface roughness of each treated specimen was determined from three measurements with a profilometer (Surface 1). Next, all specimens were brushed 60,000 times at 1.5 Hz using a brush-head force of 2 N on a Manly V-8 cross-brushing machine in a 50:50 (w/w) slurry of toothpaste and water. The surface roughness of each specimen was measured after brushing (Surface 2) followed by re-polishing with one of five protocols, then final surface roughness values were determined (Surface 3). The data were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA. Significant differences (p=0.05) in surface roughness were observed among restorative materials and polishing protocols. The microfilled and hybrid resin composite yielded significantly rougher surfaces than the other three materials following tooth brushing. Prophylactic polishing protocols can be used to restore a smooth surface on resin-based esthetic restorative materials following simulated tooth brushing.",
author = "Neme, {A. L.} and Frazier, {K. B.} and Roeder, {L. B.} and Debner, {T. L.}",
year = "2002",
month = "1",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "27",
pages = "50--58",
journal = "Operative Dentistry",
issn = "0361-7734",
publisher = "Indiana University School of Dentistry",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Effect of prophylactic polishing protocols on the surface roughness of esthetic restorative materials

AU - Neme, A. L.

AU - Frazier, K. B.

AU - Roeder, L. B.

AU - Debner, T. L.

PY - 2002/1/1

Y1 - 2002/1/1

N2 - Many polishing protocols have been evaluated in vitro for their effect on the surface roughness of restorative materials. These results have been useful in establishing protocols for in vivo application. However, limited research has focused on the subsequent care and maintenance of esthetic restorations following their placement. This investigation evaluated the effect of five polishing protocols that could be implemented at recall on the surface roughness of five direct esthetic restorative materials. Specimens (n=25) measuring 8 mm diameter X 3 mm thick were fabricated in an acrylic mold using five light-cured resin-based materials (hybrid composite, microfilled composite, packable composite, compomer and resin-modified glass ionomer). After photopolymerization, all specimens were polished with Sof-Lex Disks to produce an initial (baseline) surface finish. All specimens were then polished with one of five prophylactic protocols (Butler medium paste, Butler coarse paste, OneGloss, SuperBuff or OneGloss & SuperBuff). The average surface roughness of each treated specimen was determined from three measurements with a profilometer (Surface 1). Next, all specimens were brushed 60,000 times at 1.5 Hz using a brush-head force of 2 N on a Manly V-8 cross-brushing machine in a 50:50 (w/w) slurry of toothpaste and water. The surface roughness of each specimen was measured after brushing (Surface 2) followed by re-polishing with one of five protocols, then final surface roughness values were determined (Surface 3). The data were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA. Significant differences (p=0.05) in surface roughness were observed among restorative materials and polishing protocols. The microfilled and hybrid resin composite yielded significantly rougher surfaces than the other three materials following tooth brushing. Prophylactic polishing protocols can be used to restore a smooth surface on resin-based esthetic restorative materials following simulated tooth brushing.

AB - Many polishing protocols have been evaluated in vitro for their effect on the surface roughness of restorative materials. These results have been useful in establishing protocols for in vivo application. However, limited research has focused on the subsequent care and maintenance of esthetic restorations following their placement. This investigation evaluated the effect of five polishing protocols that could be implemented at recall on the surface roughness of five direct esthetic restorative materials. Specimens (n=25) measuring 8 mm diameter X 3 mm thick were fabricated in an acrylic mold using five light-cured resin-based materials (hybrid composite, microfilled composite, packable composite, compomer and resin-modified glass ionomer). After photopolymerization, all specimens were polished with Sof-Lex Disks to produce an initial (baseline) surface finish. All specimens were then polished with one of five prophylactic protocols (Butler medium paste, Butler coarse paste, OneGloss, SuperBuff or OneGloss & SuperBuff). The average surface roughness of each treated specimen was determined from three measurements with a profilometer (Surface 1). Next, all specimens were brushed 60,000 times at 1.5 Hz using a brush-head force of 2 N on a Manly V-8 cross-brushing machine in a 50:50 (w/w) slurry of toothpaste and water. The surface roughness of each specimen was measured after brushing (Surface 2) followed by re-polishing with one of five protocols, then final surface roughness values were determined (Surface 3). The data were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA. Significant differences (p=0.05) in surface roughness were observed among restorative materials and polishing protocols. The microfilled and hybrid resin composite yielded significantly rougher surfaces than the other three materials following tooth brushing. Prophylactic polishing protocols can be used to restore a smooth surface on resin-based esthetic restorative materials following simulated tooth brushing.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036365313&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036365313&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 11817469

AN - SCOPUS:0036365313

VL - 27

SP - 50

EP - 58

JO - Operative Dentistry

JF - Operative Dentistry

SN - 0361-7734

IS - 1

ER -