DHP HM Resin

Purpose: To compare in vitro the surface roughness (Ra) and gloss (G) produced by three conventional and one experimental polishing kits on four resin composites. Methods: 24 discs were prepared (d = 12 mm, t = 4 mm) for each resin composite: Filtek Supreme Plus Body/A2 (FSB), Yellow Translucent (FST), Heliomolar/A2 (HM), and EsthetX/A2 (EX) following the manufacturers' instructions. They were finished with 320 grit silicon carbide paper for 80 seconds each. Polishing systems: Sof-Lex, Enhance-Pogo, Astropol and Experimental Discs/EXL-695, were applied following manufacturers' instructions. Each specimen was ultrasonically cleaned with distilled water and dried. Gloss and Ra were measured with a small area glossmeter (Novo-curve) and non-contact profilometer (Proscan 2000) following ISO 4288, respectively. The results were evaluated by two-way ANOVA followed by separate one-way ANOVA and Tukey/Kramer test (P = 0.05). Results: There was a significant interaction of surface roughness and gloss between the composites and polishing systems (P < 0.05). The lowest surface roughness was recorded for FST polished with the Experimental kit. The highest gloss was obtained for FSB composite polished with the Experimental kit. The experimental polishing system produced smoothest surfaces (P < 0.05). The Enhance-Pogo and the experimental polishing kit produced highest gloss (P < 0.05).

Purpose: To evaluate the effects of different finishing and polishing procedures on surface roughness, gloss and color of five resin composites: two experimental microhybrid composites - FZ-Dentin (FZD) and FZ-Enamel (FZE), one commercial microhybrid composite - Esthet-X (EX), and two microfilled composites - Heliomolar (HM) and Renamel Microfill (RM). Methods: Surface roughness, gloss and color of the disc-shaped specimens (10 mm in diameter and 2-mm thick) were measured as Mylar (baseline), 16-fluted carbide bur and polishing were completed. Sixteen specimens of each composite were randomized to four groups of four. After finishing with a 16-fluted finishing bur, each group was polished by a different system: 1. Astropol (A), 2. Sof-lex disc (S), 3. Po-Go (P), 4. Enhance (E). Average surface roughness (Ra) was measured with a profilometer. Gloss measurements were performed using small-area glossmeter, while color coordinate values were recorded using a spectrophotometer. A deltaE*ab< or =1 was considered to be the limit of perceptibility. Results: The order of surface roughness ranked according to polishing system (for all five composites together) was: P < S < E < A. The order of surface roughness ranked according to composites was: RM < FZD < FZ < HM < EX. The order of gloss ranked according to polishing system (for all five composites together) was: P > E > A > S. The order of gloss values for the polished composites (for each of four polishing systems) was: RM > FZD > FZE > HM > EX. Fisher's PLSD intervals at the 0.05 level of significance for comparisons of means of surface roughness among five composites and four polishing systems were 0.01 and 0.01 microm, respectively. Fisher's PLSD intervals at the 0.05 level of significance for comparisons of means of gloss among five composites and four polishing systems were 6 and 5 GU, respectively. Color differences (deltaE*ab) among five composites and four polishing methods were found to range from 0.2 to 1.1.

Objectives: (1) To evaluate the changes in surface roughness and gloss after simulated toothbrushing of 9 composite materials and 2 ceramic materials in relation to brushing time and load in vitro; (2) to assess the relationship between surface gloss and surface roughness. Methods: Eight flat specimens of composite materials (microfilled: Adoro, Filtek Supreme, Heliomolar; microhybrid: Four Seasons, Tetric EvoCeram; hybrid: Compoglass F, Targis, Tetric Ceram; macrohybrid: Grandio), two ceramic materials (IPS d.SIGN and IPS Empress polished) were fabricated according to the manufacturer's instructions and optimally polished with up to 4000 grit SiC. The specimens were subjected to a toothbrushing (TB) simulation device (Willytec) with rotating movements, toothpaste slurry and at three different loads (100g/250g/350g). At hourly intervals from 1h to 10h TB, mean surface roughness Ra was measured with an optical sensor and the surface gloss (Gl) with a glossmeter. Statistical analysis was performed for log-transformed Ra data applying two-way ANOVA to evaluate the interaction between load and material and load and brushing time. Results: There was a significant interaction between material and load as well as between load and brushing time (p<0.0001). The microhybrid and hybrid materials demonstrated more surface deterioration with higher loads, whereas with the microfilled resins Heliomolar and Adoro it was vice versa. For ceramic materials, no or little deterioration was observed over time and independent of the load. The ceramic materials and 3 of the composite materials (roughness) showed no further deterioration after 5h of toothbrushing. Mean surface gloss was the parameter which discriminated best between the materials, followed by mean surface roughness Ra. There was a strong correlation between surface gloss and surface roughness for all the materials except the ceramics. The evaluation of the deterioration curves of individual specimens revealed a more or less synchronous course suspecting hinting specific external conditions and not showing the true variability in relation to the tested material. Significance: The surface roughness and gloss of dental materials changes with brushing time and load and thus results in different material rankings. Apart from Grandio, the hybrid composite resins were more prone to surface changes than microfilled composites. The deterioration potential of a composite material can be quickly assessed by measuring surface gloss. For this purpose, a brushing time of 10h (=72,000 strokes) is needed. In further comparative studies, specimens of different materials should be tested in one series to estimate the true variability.