Effects of air-polishing powders on color stability of composite resins

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of different air-polishing powders on the color stability of different types of composite resin restorative materials. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty cylindrical specimens (15×2 mm) were prepared for each of 7 composite resin restorative materials. All specimens were polished with a series of aluminum oxide polishing discs (Sof-Lex). The prepared specimens of each composite resin were randomly divided into 3 groups of 10 specimens each, for control (Group-C) and two air-powder applications (Group-CP: Cavitron Prophy-Jet; Group-PS: Sirona ProSmile prophylaxis powder). A standard air-polishing unit (ProSmile Handly) was used. All specimens were air-powdered for 10 s at 4-bar pressure. The distance of the spray nosel from the specimens was approximately 10 mm and angulation of the nosel was 90º. Specimens were stored in 100 mL of coffee (Nescafe Classic) for 24 h at 37ºC. Color measurement of all specimens was recorded before and after exposure to staining agent with a colorimeter (Minolta CR-300). Color differences (∆E*) between the 2 color measurements (baseline and after 24 h storage) were calculated. The data were analyzed with a 2-way ANOVA test, and mean values were compared by the Tukey HSD test (p≤0.05). RESULTS: According to the 2-way ANOVA results, composite resin restorative materials, air-polishing powders, and their interaction were statistically significant (p<0.05) For Aelite Aesthetic Enemal, Filtek Z250, Grandio, CeramX Mono, and Quixfil composite resin restorative materials, no significant difference was observed between Group-PS and Group-CP (p>.05) and these groups demonstrated the highest ∆E* values. For Filtek Silorane and IntenS, the highest ∆E* values were observed in Group-PS. The lowest ∆E* values for all composite resin groups were observed in Group-C. When comparing the 7 composite resin restorative materials, Aelite Aesthetic Enemal demonstrated significantly less ∆E* values than the other composite resins tested. The highest ∆E* values were observed in Quixfil. CONCLUSION: Except for Quixfil, all control groups of composite resins that were polished Sof-Lex exhibited clinically acceptable ∆E values (<3.7). Air-polishing applications increased the color change for all composite resin restorative materials tested. Composite restorations may require re-polishing after air-polishing.