Cargando…

Comparison of Different Finishing and Polishing Systems on Surface Roughness and Bacterial Adhesion of Resin Composite

Insufficient dental restoration finishing and polishing may lead to plaque accumulation, gingival inflammation, staining, caries, and esthetic impairment. Here, the effect of two finishing and polishing systems on surface roughness and bacterial adhesion were evaluated. Two finishing and polishing k...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pietrokovski, Yoav, Zeituni, Dan, Schwartz, Adi, Beyth, Nurit
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9657816/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36363005
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma15217415
_version_ 1784829791386468352
author Pietrokovski, Yoav
Zeituni, Dan
Schwartz, Adi
Beyth, Nurit
author_facet Pietrokovski, Yoav
Zeituni, Dan
Schwartz, Adi
Beyth, Nurit
author_sort Pietrokovski, Yoav
collection PubMed
description Insufficient dental restoration finishing and polishing may lead to plaque accumulation, gingival inflammation, staining, caries, and esthetic impairment. Here, the effect of two finishing and polishing systems on surface roughness and bacterial adhesion were evaluated. Two finishing and polishing kits were evaluated: diamond burs (Shine 1-2, Strauss & Co, Raanana, Israel) and paper discs (Sof-Lex 3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany) (n = 30 each). For each group surface roughness was evaluated using an optical profilometer (Contour GT-K1, Bruker, Billerica, MA, USA) (n = 10). Surface bacteria were evaluated for biofilm biomass using crystal violet (CV) staining (absorbance measured at 538 nm) and viable counts (CFU/mL) (n = 20). The control group included polymerized discs against a Mylar strip (n = 30). Student’s t test and one-way ANOVA were used for statistical evaluation. Diamond burs, paper discs, and control average surface RA were 169.4 ± 45.2 µ, 364 ± 77.7 µ, and 121.2 ± 18.1 µ, respectively. There was a significant difference found between all groups (p < 0.00001). Bacterial biomass on diamond burs, paper discs, and control samples were 0.458 ± 0.161, 0.507 ± 0.139, and 0.446 ± 0.142, respectively (p = 0.257). Viable bacterial counts (CFU/mL) on diamond burs, paper discs, and control samples were 2.25 × 10(4), 2.95 × 10(4), and 2.75 × 10(4), respectively (p = 0.856). A comparison between two finishing and polishing kits showed that the shine 1–2 diamond bur kit produced a smoother surface than the polishing disc kit. No differences were found in the biofilm biomass quantification and bacterial viable count between the groups.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9657816
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-96578162022-11-15 Comparison of Different Finishing and Polishing Systems on Surface Roughness and Bacterial Adhesion of Resin Composite Pietrokovski, Yoav Zeituni, Dan Schwartz, Adi Beyth, Nurit Materials (Basel) Article Insufficient dental restoration finishing and polishing may lead to plaque accumulation, gingival inflammation, staining, caries, and esthetic impairment. Here, the effect of two finishing and polishing systems on surface roughness and bacterial adhesion were evaluated. Two finishing and polishing kits were evaluated: diamond burs (Shine 1-2, Strauss & Co, Raanana, Israel) and paper discs (Sof-Lex 3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany) (n = 30 each). For each group surface roughness was evaluated using an optical profilometer (Contour GT-K1, Bruker, Billerica, MA, USA) (n = 10). Surface bacteria were evaluated for biofilm biomass using crystal violet (CV) staining (absorbance measured at 538 nm) and viable counts (CFU/mL) (n = 20). The control group included polymerized discs against a Mylar strip (n = 30). Student’s t test and one-way ANOVA were used for statistical evaluation. Diamond burs, paper discs, and control average surface RA were 169.4 ± 45.2 µ, 364 ± 77.7 µ, and 121.2 ± 18.1 µ, respectively. There was a significant difference found between all groups (p < 0.00001). Bacterial biomass on diamond burs, paper discs, and control samples were 0.458 ± 0.161, 0.507 ± 0.139, and 0.446 ± 0.142, respectively (p = 0.257). Viable bacterial counts (CFU/mL) on diamond burs, paper discs, and control samples were 2.25 × 10(4), 2.95 × 10(4), and 2.75 × 10(4), respectively (p = 0.856). A comparison between two finishing and polishing kits showed that the shine 1–2 diamond bur kit produced a smoother surface than the polishing disc kit. No differences were found in the biofilm biomass quantification and bacterial viable count between the groups. MDPI 2022-10-22 /pmc/articles/PMC9657816/ /pubmed/36363005 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma15217415 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Pietrokovski, Yoav
Zeituni, Dan
Schwartz, Adi
Beyth, Nurit
Comparison of Different Finishing and Polishing Systems on Surface Roughness and Bacterial Adhesion of Resin Composite
title Comparison of Different Finishing and Polishing Systems on Surface Roughness and Bacterial Adhesion of Resin Composite
title_full Comparison of Different Finishing and Polishing Systems on Surface Roughness and Bacterial Adhesion of Resin Composite
title_fullStr Comparison of Different Finishing and Polishing Systems on Surface Roughness and Bacterial Adhesion of Resin Composite
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Different Finishing and Polishing Systems on Surface Roughness and Bacterial Adhesion of Resin Composite
title_short Comparison of Different Finishing and Polishing Systems on Surface Roughness and Bacterial Adhesion of Resin Composite
title_sort comparison of different finishing and polishing systems on surface roughness and bacterial adhesion of resin composite
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9657816/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36363005
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma15217415
work_keys_str_mv AT pietrokovskiyoav comparisonofdifferentfinishingandpolishingsystemsonsurfaceroughnessandbacterialadhesionofresincomposite
AT zeitunidan comparisonofdifferentfinishingandpolishingsystemsonsurfaceroughnessandbacterialadhesionofresincomposite
AT schwartzadi comparisonofdifferentfinishingandpolishingsystemsonsurfaceroughnessandbacterialadhesionofresincomposite
AT beythnurit comparisonofdifferentfinishingandpolishingsystemsonsurfaceroughnessandbacterialadhesionofresincomposite