Cargando…

Evaluation of Surface Roughness, Hardness, and Gloss of Composites After Three Different Finishing and Polishing Techniques: An In Vitro Study

Introduction The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of three different polishing systems on the microhardness, surface roughness, and gloss of resin composites. Materials and Methods The materials evaluated were 3M™ ESPE™ Filtek™ Z-350 XT (3M™, St. Paul, MN, USA), Grandio (Voc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nithya, Kumar, Sridevi, Krishnamoorthy, Keerthi, Venkatesan, Ravishankar, Periasamy
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cureus 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7082789/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32211270
http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.7037
_version_ 1783508415438389248
author Nithya, Kumar
Sridevi, Krishnamoorthy
Keerthi, Venkatesan
Ravishankar, Periasamy
author_facet Nithya, Kumar
Sridevi, Krishnamoorthy
Keerthi, Venkatesan
Ravishankar, Periasamy
author_sort Nithya, Kumar
collection PubMed
description Introduction The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of three different polishing systems on the microhardness, surface roughness, and gloss of resin composites. Materials and Methods The materials evaluated were 3M™ ESPE™ Filtek™ Z-350 XT (3M™, St. Paul, MN, USA), Grandio (Voco, Cuxhaven, Germany), 3M™ ESPE™ Filtek™ Z250 (3M™, St. Paul, MN, USA), Shofu-Beautifil Flow (Shofu, Kyoto, Japan), and RestoFill HV N-FLO (Anabond Stedman, Chennai, India). A total of 450 samples were fabricated. Three finishing and polishing systems: PoGo® (Dentsply Caulk, Milford, DE, USA), Sof-Lex Spiral, and Sof-Lex Pop-On (3M™, St Paul, MN, USA) were evaluated. Hardness, roughness, and gloss were evaluated after finishing and polishing. The surface roughness was measured with a surface profilometer, microhardness was measured with the Struers Duramin-5 microhardness tester (Struers A/S, Ballerup, Denmark) and gloss was measured using a gloss meter. The measurement values were analysed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Shapiro-Wilks test, and two-way ANOVA. Results The Sof-Lex Spiral group exhibited higher mean microhardness (p < 0.001), less surface roughness (p < 0.001), and higher gloss (p < 0.001). Filtek Z-250 exhibited higher mean microhardness (p < 0.001) than Grandio (p < 0.001) and Shofu Beautifil Flow (p < 0.001), and Filtek Z-350 XT exhibited more microhardness than Shofu Beautifil Flow (p < 0.001). Filtek Z-350 XT exhibited lower mean surface roughness than Filtek Z-250 (p < 0.05). Filtek Z-250 polished with Sof-Lex Spiral proved to have higher gloss (34.89 gloss units (GU)) than Grandio and RestoFill HV N-FLO (p < 0.05). Conclusions Hardest, smoothest, and glossiest surfaces were obtained with the Sof-Lex Spiral finishing/polishing system. The mean microhardness of Filtek Z-250 and Filtek Z-350 XT was found to be higher than other composites used in this study. Filtek Z-350 showed a lower mean surface roughness and Filtek Z-250 exhibited a higher mean gloss.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7082789
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Cureus
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70827892020-03-24 Evaluation of Surface Roughness, Hardness, and Gloss of Composites After Three Different Finishing and Polishing Techniques: An In Vitro Study Nithya, Kumar Sridevi, Krishnamoorthy Keerthi, Venkatesan Ravishankar, Periasamy Cureus Miscellaneous Introduction The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of three different polishing systems on the microhardness, surface roughness, and gloss of resin composites. Materials and Methods The materials evaluated were 3M™ ESPE™ Filtek™ Z-350 XT (3M™, St. Paul, MN, USA), Grandio (Voco, Cuxhaven, Germany), 3M™ ESPE™ Filtek™ Z250 (3M™, St. Paul, MN, USA), Shofu-Beautifil Flow (Shofu, Kyoto, Japan), and RestoFill HV N-FLO (Anabond Stedman, Chennai, India). A total of 450 samples were fabricated. Three finishing and polishing systems: PoGo® (Dentsply Caulk, Milford, DE, USA), Sof-Lex Spiral, and Sof-Lex Pop-On (3M™, St Paul, MN, USA) were evaluated. Hardness, roughness, and gloss were evaluated after finishing and polishing. The surface roughness was measured with a surface profilometer, microhardness was measured with the Struers Duramin-5 microhardness tester (Struers A/S, Ballerup, Denmark) and gloss was measured using a gloss meter. The measurement values were analysed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Shapiro-Wilks test, and two-way ANOVA. Results The Sof-Lex Spiral group exhibited higher mean microhardness (p < 0.001), less surface roughness (p < 0.001), and higher gloss (p < 0.001). Filtek Z-250 exhibited higher mean microhardness (p < 0.001) than Grandio (p < 0.001) and Shofu Beautifil Flow (p < 0.001), and Filtek Z-350 XT exhibited more microhardness than Shofu Beautifil Flow (p < 0.001). Filtek Z-350 XT exhibited lower mean surface roughness than Filtek Z-250 (p < 0.05). Filtek Z-250 polished with Sof-Lex Spiral proved to have higher gloss (34.89 gloss units (GU)) than Grandio and RestoFill HV N-FLO (p < 0.05). Conclusions Hardest, smoothest, and glossiest surfaces were obtained with the Sof-Lex Spiral finishing/polishing system. The mean microhardness of Filtek Z-250 and Filtek Z-350 XT was found to be higher than other composites used in this study. Filtek Z-350 showed a lower mean surface roughness and Filtek Z-250 exhibited a higher mean gloss. Cureus 2020-02-19 /pmc/articles/PMC7082789/ /pubmed/32211270 http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.7037 Text en Copyright © 2020, Nithya et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Miscellaneous
Nithya, Kumar
Sridevi, Krishnamoorthy
Keerthi, Venkatesan
Ravishankar, Periasamy
Evaluation of Surface Roughness, Hardness, and Gloss of Composites After Three Different Finishing and Polishing Techniques: An In Vitro Study
title Evaluation of Surface Roughness, Hardness, and Gloss of Composites After Three Different Finishing and Polishing Techniques: An In Vitro Study
title_full Evaluation of Surface Roughness, Hardness, and Gloss of Composites After Three Different Finishing and Polishing Techniques: An In Vitro Study
title_fullStr Evaluation of Surface Roughness, Hardness, and Gloss of Composites After Three Different Finishing and Polishing Techniques: An In Vitro Study
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of Surface Roughness, Hardness, and Gloss of Composites After Three Different Finishing and Polishing Techniques: An In Vitro Study
title_short Evaluation of Surface Roughness, Hardness, and Gloss of Composites After Three Different Finishing and Polishing Techniques: An In Vitro Study
title_sort evaluation of surface roughness, hardness, and gloss of composites after three different finishing and polishing techniques: an in vitro study
topic Miscellaneous
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7082789/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32211270
http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.7037
work_keys_str_mv AT nithyakumar evaluationofsurfaceroughnesshardnessandglossofcompositesafterthreedifferentfinishingandpolishingtechniquesaninvitrostudy
AT sridevikrishnamoorthy evaluationofsurfaceroughnesshardnessandglossofcompositesafterthreedifferentfinishingandpolishingtechniquesaninvitrostudy
AT keerthivenkatesan evaluationofsurfaceroughnesshardnessandglossofcompositesafterthreedifferentfinishingandpolishingtechniquesaninvitrostudy
AT ravishankarperiasamy evaluationofsurfaceroughnesshardnessandglossofcompositesafterthreedifferentfinishingandpolishingtechniquesaninvitrostudy