|
KMID : 0362320070320020138
|
|
Journal of Korean Academy of Operative Dentistry
2007 Volume.32 No. 2 p.138 ~ p.150
|
|
|
SURFACE ROUGHNESS OF COMPOSITE RESIN ACCORDING TO FINISHING METHODS
|
|
Min Jeong-Bum
Cho Kong-Chul
Cho Young-Gon
|
|
|
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 × 3 × 2mm, 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 24hr, 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.
|
|
|
KEYWORD
|
|
|
Surface roughness, Finishing method, Polishing instrument, Resin sealant
|
|
|
FullTexts / Linksout information
|
|
|
|
|
Listed journal information
|
|
|
|