The Effect of Prophylactic Polishing Protocols on Surface Roughness of Different Resin Composites


Fazlıoğlu L. , Oğlakçı B. , Özduman Z. C. , Dalkılıç E.

10th ConsEuro, 22 - 24 April 2021, pp.92

  • Publication Type: Conference Paper / Summary Text
  • Page Numbers: pp.92

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of prophylactic polishing paste and airpolishing

on the surface roughness of different resin composites.

Materials and Methods: In this study, three different resin composites were used: nanohybrid

(Charisma Topaz, Kulzer GmbH), low-viscosity bulk-fill (Metafil Bulk Fill, Sun Medical) and highviscosity

bulk-fill (Filtek Bulk Fill, 3M ESPE) resin composites (n=40). Totally 120 disc-shaped

specimens (diameter: 4mm, thickness: 2 mm) were fabricated using Teflon molds. All specimens

were polymerized with LED light-curing device (1000 mW/cm2) according to the manufacturers’

instructions. All specimens were polished with a series of aluminum oxide polishing discs (OptiDisc,

Kerr) and subdivided into four groups according to the different prophylactic polishing protocols

(n=10): 1) no prophylactic polishing protocol (control), 2) polishing paste, 3) air-polishing, 4) airpolishing+

polishing paste. Then, the surface roughness (Ra,mm) were measured at 4 different

points of the top surfaces by a contact profilometry (Marsurf M 300 C). Data were statistically

analyzed with two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni tests (p<0.05).

Results: Regarding the polishing protocols, for Metafil Bulk Fill and Charisma Topaz, control

(0,550±0,170), (0,365±0,090) and polishing paste (0,615±0,083), (0,424±0,065) groups showed

significantly lower surface roughness than air-polishing (0,748±0,181), (0,603±0,069) and airpolishing

+ polishing paste (0,899±0,110), (0,577±0,087) groups, respectively. However, no

significant differences were observed between control and polishing paste groups. For Filtek

Bulk Fill, air-polishing group (0,657±0,059) showed significantly higher surface roughness

than polishing paste group (0,531±0,093). Regarding the resin composites, for control group,

Charisma Topaz (0,365±0,090) showed significantly lower surface roughness than Metafil Bulk

Fill (0,550±0,170) and Filtek Bulk Fill (0,632±0,109). For air-polishing and polishing paste groups,

Metafil Bulk Fill showed significantly higher surface roughness than Charisma Topaz. For airpolishing

+ polishing paste groups, Metafill Bulk Fill (0,899±0,110) showed significantly higher

surface roughness than Charisma Topaz (0,577±0,087) and Filtek Bulk Fill (0,596±0,089).

Conclusion: Air-polishing caused higher surface roughness than polishing paste for all tested

composites. Besides, low-viscosity bulk-fill showed higher surface roughness than nanohybrid

composite for all polishing protocols.