Journal of Prevention and Treatment for Stomatological Diseases ›› 2019, Vol. 27 ›› Issue (7): 441-445.doi: 10.12016/j.issn.2096-1456.2019.07.006

• Basic Study • Previous Articles     Next Articles

Comparison of polishing effects of three polishing systems on machinable composite resins

Yanan LIU,Likai WANG,Sisi LIU,Hui HUI,Haifeng WANG()   

  1. School of Rehabilitation Medicine of Capital Medical University, China Rehabilitation Research Center, Department of Stomatology, Beijing Bo’ai Hospital, Beijing 100068, China
  • Received:2019-01-04 Revised:2019-03-23 Online:2019-07-20 Published:2019-07-24
  • Contact: Haifeng WANG E-mail:wanghaifeng98@163.com

Abstract:

Objective To compare the polishing effects of three different polishing systems on machinable composite resins and to provide a basis for the rational selection of polishing systems in the clinic. Methods Block HC, Cerasmart, and Hyramic were fabricated into 90 test pieces. Then, 30 test pieces for each material were randomly divided into 3 groups with 10 pieces per group. The pieces were polished with the Vita Enamic ? Polishing Set (Vita group), EVE RA341 composite polishing set (Eve group), and Toboo M elastic ceramic polishing set (Tob group). The surface roughness and gloss of each test piece after polishing were measured, and the surface morphology was observed using a scanning electron microscope. Results The surface roughness values of the Vita and Eve groups for the same composite material were significantly lower than those in the Tob group (P < 0.05). No significant difference was found between the Vita and Eve groups (P > 0.05). Lower roughness values could be achieved. The gloss values of the three composite resins in the same material group were in the order of Vita group > Eve group > Tob group, and the differences between the groups were statistically significant (P < 0.05). No significant differences in the surface roughness and gloss values were found among the different composite resins (P > 0.05). Scanning electron microscopy showed that the Vita group had fewer and lighter scratches on the surface and a more uniform texture. Conclusion The Vita Enamic ?Polishing Set can be used to cut composite resin and yields the lowest roughness and highest gloss values with the best polishing effect. The same polishing system did not exhibit significant differences in the polishing effect for different machinable composite resins.

Key words: machinable composite resin, polishing, surface roughness, gloss, scanning electron microscopy

CLC Number: 

  • R783.4

Table 1

Information for the three machinable composite resins"

材料名称 基质 填料主要成分 填料质量分数(%) 颜色/尺寸 生产商 产地
Block HC UDMA, TEGDMA 二氧化硅、硅酸锆 61 A2-LT/M Shofu 日本
Cerasmart Bis-MEPP, UDMA, DMA 二氧化硅、钡玻璃粉 71 A2-LT/14 GC 日本
润瓷 UDMA, TEGDMA 二氧化硅粉体、钡玻璃粉 82 A2-LT/14 爱尔创 中国

Table 2

Information for the three polishing systems"

组别 产品名称 制造商 成分 用法
Vita Vita Enamic? Polishing Set Vita,德国 聚氨酯、碳化硅、金刚石颗粒 ①抛光(粉色) ≤ 10 000 r/min,30 s
②高光泽抛光(灰色) ≤ 8 000 r/min,30 s
Eve RA341复合材料抛光套装 EVE,德国 橡胶、金刚石颗粒 ①修整(灰白色) ≤ 8 000 r/min,30 s
②抛光(深粉色) ≤ 8 000 r/min,30 s
Tob 弹性陶瓷抛光套装 道邦,中国 硅胶、橡胶、金刚石颗粒 ①修整(灰白色) ≤ 20 000 r/min,20 s
②抛光(深粉色) ≤ 10 000 r/min,20 s
③高光泽抛光(灰色) ≤ 10 000 r/min,20 s

Table 3

Surface roughness (Ra) of the three machinable composites after using the three polishing systems $\bar{x}$± s,μm"

材料 Vita Eve Tob 平均值 F P
Block HC 0.098 ± 0.008 0.104 ± 0.010 0.261 ± 0.032 0.154 ± 0.079 218.534 <0.001
Cerasmart 0.101 ± 0.021 0.122 ± 0.016 0.249 ± 0.038 0.157 ± 0.071 90.090 <0.001
润瓷 0.105 ± 0.012 0.114 ± 0.019 0.233 ± 0.022 0.151 ± 0.062 156.500 <0.001
平均值 0.102 ± 0.015 0.113 ± 0.016 0.248 ± 0.032 0.154 ± 0.070 415.2041) <0.0011)
F 0.554 3.228 2.034 0.6791) 2.6662)
P 0.581 0.055 0.150 0.5101) 0.0382)

Table 4

Gloss values of the three machinable composites after using the three polishing systems for each group of specimens $\bar{x}$ ± s,GU"

材料 Vita Eve Tob 平均值 F P
Block HC 76.79 ± 3.30 70.49 ± 3.68 42.65 ± 5.82 63.31 ± 15.68 169.629 <0.001
Cerasmart 74.10 ± 4.35 66.55 ± 5.68 44.05 ± 3.53 61.57 ± 13.72 115.129 <0.001
润瓷 72.38 ± 4.17 67.38 ± 3.39 44.69 ± 3.91 61.48 ± 12.80 147.861 <0.001
平均值 74.42 ± 4.25 68.14 ± 4.56 43.80 ± 4.46 62.12 ± 13.98 425.0261) <0.0011)
F 3.140 2.258 0.529 1.7281) 1.9362)
P 0.059 0.124 0.595 0.1841) 0.1122)

Figure 1

Surface morphologies of the three machinable composites after using the three polishing systems SEM × 5 000"

[1] Nakamura Y, Hojo S, Sato H . The effect of surface roughness on the Weibull distribution of porcelain strength[J]. Dent Mater J, 2010,29(1):30-34.
doi: 10.4012/dmj.2009-059
[2] Preis V, Weiser F, Handel G , et al. Wear performance of monolithic dental ceramics with different surface treatments[J]. Quintessence Int, 2013,44(5):393-405.
[3] Vichi A, Fonzar R F, Goracci C , et al. Effect of finishing and polishing on roughness and gloss of lithium disilicate and lithium silicate zirconia reinforced glass ceramic for CAD/CAM systems[J]. Oper Dent, 2018,43(1):90-100.
doi: 10.2341/16-381-L
[4] 刘亚男, 王立凯, 刘思思 , 等. 冷热循环老化对树脂-陶瓷复合体力学性能的影响[J]. 中华医学杂志, 2018,98(28):2275-2278.
[5] Blackburn C, Rask H, Awada A . Mechanical properties of resin-ceramic CAD-CAM materials after accelerated aging[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2018,119(6):954-958.
doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.08.016
[6] Goujat A, Abouelleil H, Colon P , et al. Mechanical properties and internal fit of 4 CAD-CAM block materials[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2018,119(3):384-389.
doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.03.001
[7] Sen N, Us YO . Mechanical and optical properties of monolithic CAD-CAM restorative materials[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2018,119(4):593-599.
doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.06.012
[8] Mota EG, Smidt LN, Fracasso LM , et al. The effect of milling and postmilling procedures on the surface roughness of CAD/CAM materials[J]. J Esthet Restor Dent, 2017,29(6):450-458.
doi: 10.1111/jerd.2017.29.issue-6
[9] Kamonkhantikul K, Arksornnukit M, Lauvahutanon S , et al. Toothbrushing alters the surface roughness and gloss of composite resin CAD/CAM blocks[J]. Dent Mater J, 2016,35(2):225-232.
doi: 10.4012/dmj.2015-228
[10] Antonson SA, Yazici AR, Kilinc E , et al. Comparison of different finishing/polishing systems on surface roughness and gloss of resin composites[J]. J Dent, 2011,39(suppl1):e9-e17.
doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2011.01.006
[11] 王丹凤, 庄少敏 . 3种抛光方法对树脂表面粗糙度影响的比较[J]. 广东牙病防治, 2014,22(3):134-138.
[12] Bollen CM, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M . Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature[J]. Dent Mater, 1997,13(4):258-269.
doi: 10.1016/S0109-5641(97)80038-3
[13] Kaizer MR, de Oliveira-Ogliari A, Cenci MS , et al. Do nanofill or submicron composites show improved smoothness and gloss? A systematic review of in vitro studies[J]. Dent Mater, 2014,30(4):e41-e78.
[14] 王瑞莉, 袁重阳, 潘怡湘 , 等. 流动与膏体复合树脂表面抛光性能的比较研究[J]. 中华口腔医学杂志, 2017,52(4):243-247.
[1] Xiao-ling SUN,Peng WANG,Yu-mei CAO,Shu-tai LIU. Comparative study of enamel demineralization of different dairy (drink) goods on the primary teeth in vitro [J]. Journal of Prevention and Treatment for Stomatological Diseases, 2016, 24(10): 574-577.
[2] YU Pei, XUE Jing, ZHANG Xiao-wei, ZHENG Cang-shang. The influence of the roughness of zirconia ceramic surface on microbial attachment [J]. journal1, 2016, 24(1): 20-25.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] Hong-chang LAI,Jun-yu SHI. Maxillary sinus floor elevation[J]. Journal of Prevention and Treatment for Stomatological Diseases, 2017, 25(1): 8 -12 .
[2] Pin ZHOU, Yang-fei LI. MRI study of temporomandibular joint disc position in asymptomatic volunteers[J]. Journal of Prevention and Treatment for Stomatological Diseases, 2017, 25(4): 239 -244 .
[3] Xinxin XIA, Fang FANG, Lijuan CHENG. Shaping ability of Pathfile and WaveOne in simulated root canals[J]. Journal of Prevention and Treatment for Stomatological Diseases, 2017, 25(6): 365 -368 .
[4] Yuanhong LI, Xinyi FANG, Yu QIU, Lei CHENG. Experimental study on the effects of green tea on salivary flow rate and pH value[J]. Journal of Prevention and Treatment for Stomatological Diseases, 2017, 25(9): 560 -564 .
[5] Chengzhang LI. Masticatory muscles in occlusion[J]. Journal of Prevention and Treatment for Stomatological Diseases, 2017, 25(12): 755 -760 .
[6] . [J]. Journal of Prevention and Treatment for Stomatological Diseases, 2018, 26(1): 1 .
[7] Zhirong WU, Shiguang Huang. Research progress on the etiology, clinical examination and treatment of peri-implantitis[J]. Journal of Prevention and Treatment for Stomatological Diseases, 2018, 26(6): 401 -405 .
[8] Xiaowu YAO, Shisheng CHEN, Zizheng LU, Minxiao LIN. Clinical report and literature review on the amyloidosis of salivary glands[J]. Journal of Prevention and Treatment for Stomatological Diseases, 2018, 26(8): 533 -536 .
[9] Lan LIAO, Lijun ZENG. Updated research on digitalization in aesthetic restoration[J]. Journal of Prevention and Treatment for Stomatological Diseases, 2018, 26(7): 409 -414 .
[10] Yu LU, Chengxia LIU, Zhongjun LIU. Role of TRAF6 in inflammatory responses of human osteoblast-like cells with Enterococcusfaecalis[J]. Journal of Prevention and Treatment for Stomatological Diseases, 2017, 25(7): 420 -425 .
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.