Cargando…

Surface evaluations of a nanocomposite after different finishing and polishing systems for anterior and posterior restorations

This study aims to evaluate the effects of different finishing and polishing (F/P) systems on gloss and surface morphology of a new nanocomposite. Thirty discs of Filtek Universal Restorative material (3 M, ESPE) were prepared and divided into six groups (n = 5). Group A and B followed F/P protocols...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Monterubbianesi, Riccardo, Tosco, Vincenzo, Orilisi, Giulia, Grandini, Simone, Orsini, Giovanna, Putignano, Angelo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9292722/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34105839
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jemt.23850
_version_ 1784749442453209088
author Monterubbianesi, Riccardo
Tosco, Vincenzo
Orilisi, Giulia
Grandini, Simone
Orsini, Giovanna
Putignano, Angelo
author_facet Monterubbianesi, Riccardo
Tosco, Vincenzo
Orilisi, Giulia
Grandini, Simone
Orsini, Giovanna
Putignano, Angelo
author_sort Monterubbianesi, Riccardo
collection PubMed
description This study aims to evaluate the effects of different finishing and polishing (F/P) systems on gloss and surface morphology of a new nanocomposite. Thirty discs of Filtek Universal Restorative material (3 M, ESPE) were prepared and divided into six groups (n = 5). Group A and B followed F/P protocols for anterior restorations, whereas Group C and D for posterior ones. Group E represented the control (covered by Mylar strip) and Group F represented the nanocomposite placement by means of clinical hand instruments; Groups E and F did not undergo F/P procedures. Among the polished groups, Group B showed the highest values (68.54 ± 7.54 GU), followed by Group A and D (46.87 ± 5.52 GU; 53.76 ± 2.65 GU). Finally, Group C (37.38 ± 4.93 GU) displayed the lowest results. Overall, Group E showed the highest gloss values (93.45 ± 8.27 GU), while Group F presented the lowest ones (1.74 ± 0.64 GU). Surface analysis revealed that Group A, C, and D displayed a smooth surface. Group B showed the lowest irregularities. Group E exhibited the most uniform superficial morphology. On the other hand, Group F displayed the most irregular one. In conclusion, using the tested material, only two protocols achieved appropriate gloss values. Then, clinicians might use the protocols of Group B and Group D, for anterior and posterior restorations, respectively.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9292722
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92927222022-07-20 Surface evaluations of a nanocomposite after different finishing and polishing systems for anterior and posterior restorations Monterubbianesi, Riccardo Tosco, Vincenzo Orilisi, Giulia Grandini, Simone Orsini, Giovanna Putignano, Angelo Microsc Res Tech Research Articles This study aims to evaluate the effects of different finishing and polishing (F/P) systems on gloss and surface morphology of a new nanocomposite. Thirty discs of Filtek Universal Restorative material (3 M, ESPE) were prepared and divided into six groups (n = 5). Group A and B followed F/P protocols for anterior restorations, whereas Group C and D for posterior ones. Group E represented the control (covered by Mylar strip) and Group F represented the nanocomposite placement by means of clinical hand instruments; Groups E and F did not undergo F/P procedures. Among the polished groups, Group B showed the highest values (68.54 ± 7.54 GU), followed by Group A and D (46.87 ± 5.52 GU; 53.76 ± 2.65 GU). Finally, Group C (37.38 ± 4.93 GU) displayed the lowest results. Overall, Group E showed the highest gloss values (93.45 ± 8.27 GU), while Group F presented the lowest ones (1.74 ± 0.64 GU). Surface analysis revealed that Group A, C, and D displayed a smooth surface. Group B showed the lowest irregularities. Group E exhibited the most uniform superficial morphology. On the other hand, Group F displayed the most irregular one. In conclusion, using the tested material, only two protocols achieved appropriate gloss values. Then, clinicians might use the protocols of Group B and Group D, for anterior and posterior restorations, respectively. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2021-06-09 2021-12 /pmc/articles/PMC9292722/ /pubmed/34105839 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jemt.23850 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Microscopy Research and Technique published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Articles
Monterubbianesi, Riccardo
Tosco, Vincenzo
Orilisi, Giulia
Grandini, Simone
Orsini, Giovanna
Putignano, Angelo
Surface evaluations of a nanocomposite after different finishing and polishing systems for anterior and posterior restorations
title Surface evaluations of a nanocomposite after different finishing and polishing systems for anterior and posterior restorations
title_full Surface evaluations of a nanocomposite after different finishing and polishing systems for anterior and posterior restorations
title_fullStr Surface evaluations of a nanocomposite after different finishing and polishing systems for anterior and posterior restorations
title_full_unstemmed Surface evaluations of a nanocomposite after different finishing and polishing systems for anterior and posterior restorations
title_short Surface evaluations of a nanocomposite after different finishing and polishing systems for anterior and posterior restorations
title_sort surface evaluations of a nanocomposite after different finishing and polishing systems for anterior and posterior restorations
topic Research Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9292722/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34105839
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jemt.23850
work_keys_str_mv AT monterubbianesiriccardo surfaceevaluationsofananocompositeafterdifferentfinishingandpolishingsystemsforanteriorandposteriorrestorations
AT toscovincenzo surfaceevaluationsofananocompositeafterdifferentfinishingandpolishingsystemsforanteriorandposteriorrestorations
AT orilisigiulia surfaceevaluationsofananocompositeafterdifferentfinishingandpolishingsystemsforanteriorandposteriorrestorations
AT grandinisimone surfaceevaluationsofananocompositeafterdifferentfinishingandpolishingsystemsforanteriorandposteriorrestorations
AT orsinigiovanna surfaceevaluationsofananocompositeafterdifferentfinishingandpolishingsystemsforanteriorandposteriorrestorations
AT putignanoangelo surfaceevaluationsofananocompositeafterdifferentfinishingandpolishingsystemsforanteriorandposteriorrestorations