ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the difference of surface roughness of composite resin according to composite resin type, polishing methods, and use of resin sealant. Two hundred rectangular specimens, sized 8 x 3 x 2 mm, were made of Micro-new (Bisco, Inc., Schaumburg, IL, U.S.A) and Filtek Supreme (3M ESPE Dental Products, St. Paul, MN, U.S.A.), and divided into two groups; Micronew-M group, Filtek Supreme-S group. Specimens for each composite group were subdivided into five groups by finishing and polishing instruments used; M1 & S1 (polyester strip), M2 & S2 (Sof-Lex disc), M3 & S3 (Enhance disc and polishing paste), M4 & S4 (Astropol), and M5 & S5 (finishing bur). Polished groups were added letter B after the application of resin surface sealant (Biscover), eg, M1B and S1B. After specimens were stored with distilled water for 24 hr, average surface roughness (Ra) was taken using a surface roughness tester. Representative specimens of each group were examined by FE-SEM (S-4700: Hitachi High Technologies Co., Tokyo, Japan). The data were analysed using paired t-test, ANOVA and Duncan's tests at the 0.05 probability level. The results of this study were as follows; 1. The lowest Ra was achieved in all groups using polyester strip and the highest Ra was achieved in M5, S5 and M5B groups using finishing bur. On FE-SEM, M1 and S1 groups provided the smoothest surfaces, M5 and S5 groups were presented the roughest surfaces and voids by debonding of filler on the polished specimens. 2. There was no significant difference in Ra between Micronew and Filtek Supreme before the application of resin sealant, but Micronew was smoother than Filek Supreme after the application of resin sealant. 3. There was significant corelation between Ra of type of composite resin and polishing methods before the application of resin sealant (p = 0.000), but no significant interaction between them after the application of resin sealant. On FE-SEM, most of composite resin surfaces were smooth after the application of resin sealant on the polished specimens. 4. Compared with before and after the application of resin sealant in group treated in the same composite and polishing methods, Ra of M4B and M5B was statistically lower than that of M4 and M5, and S5B was lower than that of S5, respectively (p < 0.05). In conclusion, surface roughness by polishing instruments was different according to type of composite resin. Overall, polyester strip produced the smoothest surface, but finishing bur produced the roughest surface. Application of resin sealant provided the smooth surfaces in specimens polished with Enhance, Astropol and finishing bur, but not provided them in specimens polished with Sof-Lex disc.
Subject(s)
Polyesters , WaterABSTRACT
This study evaluated the microleakage performance of four self-etcing primer adhesives(Clearfil SE Bond, Clearfil Liner Bond 2, UniFil Bond, and FL Bond) and one self-etching adhesive(Prompt L-Pop). Class V cavity preparations with occlusal margins in enamel and gingival margins in dentin were prepared on both buccal and lingual surfaces of 50 extracted human molar teeth. Prepared teeth were randomly divided into five groups and restored using one of five adhesives and composite resins: Prompt L-Pop/Filtek Z 250(Group 1), Clearfil SE Bond/Clearfil AP-X(Group 2), Clearfil Liner Bond 2/Clearfil AP-X(Group 3), UniFil Bond/UniFil F(Group 4), and FL Bond/Filtek Z 250(Group 5). Following one day storage in room temperature water, the restored teeth were thermocycled for 500 cycles between 5degrees C and 55degrees C. Marginal microleakage was assessed by dye penetration using 2% methylene blue dye. After 24 hours, the teeth were sectioned longitudinally and evaluated for microleakage under steromicroscope. The data were statistically analysed by Kruskal-Wallis Test, Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon signed ranked tests. The results of this study were as follows; 1. The microleakges at both enamel and dentinal margins were the lowest in group 4, increasing among groups in the following order: group 2, follwed by group 5, follwed by group 1, and the highest in group 3. 2. At the enamel margins, the microleakage of group 3 was significantly higher than those of groups 2, 4 and 5(p0.05).