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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |