Do composite resin polishing systems damage enamel?

Finishing and polishing of composite resin restorations may cause damage to the bordering enamel. Although many studies have investigated the effect of polish on restorative materials, few have quantified the effect on bordering enamel. The objective of this study was to compare enamel loss surrounding composite restorations after finishing and polishing sequences. The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in enamel loss between different finishing and polishing sequences. Class V preparations on the buccal and lingual surfaces of 15 extracted human molars were restored with a composite resin and assigned to 1 of 2 finishing and polishing sequences, so that each tooth underwent both sequences (n = 15 per sequence). In sequence 1, a tungsten carbide finishing bur and aluminum oxide polishing discs were used; in sequence 2, a diamond finishing bur, aluminum oxide-impregnated finishing cup, and diamond-impregnated polishing cup were used. Tooth surfaces were scanned with an optical scanner after preparation, finishing, initial polishing, and final polishing. The finishing and polishing scans were aligned to the preparation scan using Cumulus software. The depth of enamel surface loss was calculated and statistically analyzed (α = 0.05; paired t test). Most enamel loss (mean [SD]) resulted from the finishing step with the tungsten carbide bur (51.8 [21.3] µm) or diamond bur (43.3 [12.6] µm). Each polishing step increased mean enamel loss by only a few microns. There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 finishing and polishing sequences. The majority of enamel damage during finishing and polishing of composite resin restorations resulted from the finishing burs. Little enamel was removed by either of the tested composite resin polishing systems.

A quantitative and visual examination of sealed restorative specimens following exposure to artificial aging.

Low-viscosity polymer resins, or surface sealants (SSs), have been utilized as a means of finalizing the polishing step following the placement of composite resin restorations. The aim of this study was to measure the surface roughness (Ra) of composite resins treated with different SSs before and after exposure to an accelerated artificial aging protocol. The study included 5 experimental groups of composite resin discs (TPH Spectra ST) treated with different SSs (PermaSeal, Embrace WetBond Seal-n-Shine, OptiGuard, BisCover LV, and DuraFinish) and a control group consisting of untreated discs (n = 6 per group). The discs were prepared by inserting composite resin in 10 × 1-mm rings, covering the ring and material with a transparent strip, compressing the assembly between glass slides, and polymerizing through the slides on each side for 40 seconds with an LED curing light. Each disc except for the control specimens received a coating of the selected SS followed by application of a transparent matrix strip and then light polymerization for 20 seconds using an LED light source. Surface roughness measurements were obtained with a digital contact profilometer at baseline (immediately after polymerization) and following exposure to a thermocycling regimen to simulate aging. The data were analyzed using 2-way analysis of variance and post hoc Student-Newman-Keuls test with significance set at P < 0.05. There were no statistically significant differences among the groups at baseline. There were no statistically significant differences between the baseline and post-thermocycling Ra measurements except among the DuraFinish specimens, which were significantly rougher than all other groups after accelerated artificial aging. The use of SSs for the initial insertion and possibly for the long-term maintenance of composite resins could be minimally beneficial for restoration maintenance if a transparent covering medium is utilized during polymerization. However, due to the effects caused by formation of an oxygen-inhibited layer of unpolymerized monomers if a covering medium is not used, the results suggest the benefits do not offset the costs considering both gloss and Ra surface-testing parameters.