Effect of different prophylactic polishing procedures on the surface roughness of microhybrid and nanohybrid resin composites
xmlui.mirage2.itemSummaryView.MetaDataShow full item record
Objectives: The aim of the present study was to evaluate effects of different professional dental prophylaxis procedures on the surface roughness of a microhybrid (Charisma, Heraeus-Kulzer) and a nanohybrid (Ice, SDI Dental) resin composites. Materials and Methods: 45 disc shaped (2 mm thick /8 mm in diameter) specimens of each restorative materials (totally 90 specimens) were prepared using plexyglass mold. Specimens were polished with medium, fine and ultra-fine Sof-Lex (3M-ESPE) discs and 45 specimens of each composite were randomly divided into five groups (n=9). The first group received no prophylaxis treatment and served as control. The other groups received prophlaxis procedures including Detartrine paste (Septodont) with rotating rubber cup, Gelato paste (Keystone Industries) with rotating rubber cup, pumice-water slurry with rotating rubber cup and pumice-water slurry with rotating brush. After prophlaxis procedures surface roughness values of all specimens were measured using an optical prophylometer (Zygo New View 7200, Ametek). Data was statistically analyzed using Mann Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis Tests at the 0.01 and 0.025 level of significance respectively. Results: The smoothest surfaces were observed in control groups for both resin composites (p < 0.001). Control groups' surface roughness values of resin composites tested were significantly different (p < 0.001). However there were no statistically significant differences between surface roughness values of microhybrid and nanohybrid resin composites that received same prophylaxis treatment. Gelato paste, pumice-water slurry with rotating rubber cup and pumice-water slurry with rotating brush caused significantly rougher surfaces than control group but surface roughness values obtained with Detartrine were not significantly different from the control group in both composites. Conclusions: All prophylaxis procedures tested in the study increased the roughness values of both composites to a level that would be retantive to bacteria. Because of that dental professional must be careful during prophylaxis procedures otherwise repolishing or rarely repair of the composite restoration would be necessary after prophylaxis. © 2018 Cumhuriyet University Faculty of Dentistry.