scholarly journals Chemical and Mechanical Roughening Treatments of a Supra-Nano Composite Resin Surface: SEM and Topographic Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (13) ◽  
pp. 4457
Author(s):  
Francesco Puleio ◽  
Giuseppina Rizzo ◽  
Fabiana Nicita ◽  
Fabrizio Lo Giudice ◽  
Cristina Tamà ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Mechanical Treatment ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Acid Etching ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Nano Composite ◽  
Topographic Analysis ◽  
Diamond Bur ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Mechanical Surface

Background: Repairing a restoration is a more advantageous and less invasive alternative to its total makeover. The aim of this study was to analyze the effects of chemical and mechanical surface treatments aimed at increasing the roughness of a supra-nano composite resin. Methods: 27 cylindrical blocks of microhybrid composite were made. The samples were randomly divided into nine groups (n = 3). The samples’ surface was treated differently per each group: acid etching (35% H3PO4, 30 s and 60 s), diamond bur milling, sandblasting and the combination of mechanical treatment and acid etching. The samples’ surface was observed by a scanning electron microscope (SEM) and a confocal microscope for observational study, and surface roughness (Ra) was recorded for quantitative analysis. Results: The images of the samples sandblasted with Al2O3 showed the greatest irregularity and the highest number of microcavities. The surfaces roughened by diamond bur showed evident parallel streaks and sporadic superficial microcavities. No significant roughness differences were recorded between other groups. The difference in roughness between the control group, diamond bur milled group and sandblasted group was statistically significant. (p < 0.01). Comparison between the diamond bur milled group and the sandblasted group was also significant (p < 0.01). Conclusion: According to our results, sandblasting is the best treatment to increase the surface roughness of a supra-nano composite.

scholarly journals Evaluation of the surface roughness of a nanofilled composite resin submitted to different smoothing and finishing techniques

2016 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 110-114
Author(s):  
Micheli Del Frari ANSUJ ◽  
Iuri Silveira dos SANTOS ◽  
Marcela MARQUEZAN ◽  
Letícia Brandão DURAND ◽  
Roselaine Terezinha POZZOBON
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Study Groups ◽  
Lower Surface ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Absolute Alcohol ◽  
Composite Resin Restorations ◽  
Level Of Significance ◽  
Surface Sealant

Abstract Introduction: Controlling the surface smoothness characteristics of the composite resin when performing a direct restorative technique is one of the factors involved in achieving restorative success. Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the surface roughness of a nanofilled composite resin submitted to different smoothing and finishing techniques. Material and method: Fifty test specimens were made with the Z350 XT composite resin (3M ESPE) and then divided into five study groups according to the smoothing and finishing method applied, as follows: G1 (control), polyester strip; G2, composite spatula; G3, brush cleaned with absolute alcohol and dried; G4, brush cleaned with absolute alcohol, dried and moistened with Single Bond (3M ESPE); and G5, brush cleaned with absolute alcohol, dried and moistened with Natural Glaze surface sealant (DFL). After fabrication, the specimens were stored for 24 h in deionized water. The surface roughness of the specimens was measured using a profilometer. Surface roughness means were compared by analysis of variance followed by Tukey’s test at a level of significance of 5%. Result: The lowest surface roughness was observed in G1 (control group) and the highest, in G3. G5 had lower surface roughness values compared to the other test groups, and presented values similar to those of the control group. Conclusion: The smoothing and finishing techniques influenced the surface roughness of the composite resin. Application of the surface sealant by the copolymerization technique resulted in lower roughness values. The use of a clean, dry brush promoted roughness values beyond the acceptable limit, and is therefore liable to compromise the performance of composite resin restorations.

scholarly journals Does the temperature of beverages affect the surface roughness, hardness, and color stability of a composite resin?

2013 ◽  
Vol 07 (02) ◽  
pp. 165-171 ◽  
Author(s):  
Duygu Tuncer ◽  
Emel Karaman ◽  
Esra Firat
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Color Change ◽  
Artificial Saliva ◽  
Color Stability ◽  
The Other ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Baseline Values ◽  
Hardness Values ◽  
Properties Of Composites

ABSTRACT Objective: To investigate the effect of beverages′ temperature on the surface roughness, hardness, and color stability of a composite resin. Materials and Methods: Fifty specimens of the Filtek Z250 composite (3M ESPE, Dental Products, St.Paul, MN, USA) were prepared and initial roughness, microhardness, and color were measured. Then the specimens were randomly divided into five groups of 10 specimens each: Coffee at 70°C, coffee at 37°C, cola at 10°C, cola at 37°C, and artificial saliva (control). After the samples were subjected to 15 min × 3 cycles per day of exposure to the solutions for 30 days, the final measurements were recorded. Results: After immersion in beverages, the artificial saliva group showed hardness values higher than those of the other groups (P < 0.001) and the microhardness values were significantly different from the initial values in all groups except for the control group. Both cola groups showed roughness values higher than the baseline values (P < 0.05), while the other groups showed values similar to the baseline measurements. When ΔE measurements were examined, the 70°C coffee group showed the highest color change among all the groups (P < 0.05). Conclusion: High-temperature solutions caused alterations in certain properties of composites, such as increased color change, although they did not affect the hardness or roughness of the composite resin material tested.

scholarly journals Effect of whitening dentifrices on the surface roughness of a nanohybrid composite resin

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (02) ◽  
pp. 170-175 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriela Migliorin da Rosa ◽  
Luciana Mendonça da Silva ◽  
Márcio de Menezes ◽  
Hugo Felipe do Vale ◽  
Diego Ferreira Regalado ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Wilcoxon Test ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Mean Values ◽  
Short Period ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Nanohybrid Composite ◽  
One Way Anova

ABSTRACT Objectives: The present study verified the influence of whitening dentifrices on the surface roughness of a nanohybrid composite resin. Materials and Methods: Thirty-two specimens were prepared with Filtek™ Z350 XT (3M/ESPE) and randomly divided into four groups (n = 08) that were subjected to brushing simulation equivalent to the period of 1 month. The groups assessed were a control group with distilled water (G1), Colgate Total 12 Professional Clean (G2), Sensodyne Extra Whitener Extra Fresh (G3), and Colgate Luminous White (G4). A sequence of 90 cycles was performed for all the samples. The initial roughness of each group was analyzed by the Surface Roughness Tester (TR 200-TIME Group Inc., CA, USA). After the brushing period, the final roughness was measured, and the results were statistically analyzed using nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis and Dunn tests for intergroup roughness comparison in the time factor. For intragroup and “Δ Final − Initial” comparisons, the Wilcoxon test and (one-way) ANOVA were, respectively, performed (α = 0.05). Results: The roughness mean values before and after brushing showed no statistically significant difference when the different dentifrices were used. None of the dentifrices analyzed increased significantly the nanohybrid composite resin surface roughness in a 1 month of tooth brushing simulation. Conclusions: These results suggest that no hazardous effect on the roughness of nanohybrid composite resin can be expected when whitening dentifrices are used for a short period. Similar studies should be conducted to analyze other esthetic composite materials.

scholarly journals Silane Effect of Universal Adhesive on the Composite–Composite Repair Bond Strength after Different Surface Pretreatments

Polymers ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 950 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gioia Michelotti ◽  
Maria Niedzwiecki ◽  
Darius Bidjan ◽  
Phoebe Dieckmann ◽  
Shengjile Deari ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Silica Coating ◽  
Positive Control ◽  
Positive Control Group ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Universal Adhesive ◽  
Diamond Bur ◽  
Composite Substrates ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Mechanical Surface

This study investigated the impact of a separate silanization step on the repair bond strength of composite substrates using a universal adhesive after various mechanical surface treatments. Composite specimens were aged and exposed to the following mechanical roughening treatments: diamond bur abrasion, aluminum oxide sandblasting, or silica coating. The specimens were then either left untreated or conditioned with universal adhesive (Scotchbond Universal), or a silane coupling agent was applied before the use of the universal adhesive or a conventional adhesive (Optibond FL). The conditioned surfaces and fresh substrate (positive control group) were covered with repair composite, and microtensile bond strength testing was performed. The significantly highest bond strength was obtained in the positive control group. Repair bond strength of the universal adhesive applied after a separate silanization step was similar to that without prior silanization, independent of the mechanical surface treatment. Moreover, after silica coating, no significant differences in the repair bond strength were detected among the different adhesive treatments. In conclusion, a separate silanization step before surface conditioning with the universal adhesive does not enhance the repair bond strength. On silica-coated composite substrates, repair bond strength values of the universal adhesive were similar to those of the conventional adhesive.

The Effect of Finishing and Polishing Procedures on the Surface Roughness of Composite Resin Materials

2007 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nuray Attar
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Surface Groups ◽  
Average Roughness ◽  
Strip Surface ◽  
Polishing Procedures ◽  
Surface Sealant

Abstract Aims The aims of this study were to evaluate the effect of various finishing and polishing procedures on the surface roughness of six different composite resin materials (Artemis Enamel, TPH Spectrum, Filtek A–110, Filtek Supreme Enamel, Solitaire 2, and Filtek P–60) as well as to evaluate the effectiveness of the surface sealant application (BisCover) on the surface roughness after finishing and polishing procedures of tested composites. Methods and Materials Specimens (n=168) measuring 5 mm in diameter x 2 mm in thickness were fabricated in a plexiglass well covered with a Mylar strip using six composite resins. A control group of seven specimens of each material received no polishing after being cured under the Mylar strip. Twenty-one specimens for each composite were randomly divided among three finishing and polishing groups (n=7). Each group was polished using a different system: Carbide bur/Sof-Lex disc, Carbide bur/Enhance disc with polishing paste, and Carbide bur/Edenta composite finishing kit. The average surface roughness (Ra, ìm) of the control and treated specimens were measured with the Mitutoyo Surftest–402 Surface Roughness tester. After a surface sealant (BisCover) was applied to all treated specimens, according to manufacturer's instructions, the average roughness (Ra) was measured again. Results were statistically analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the post-hoc Scheffe's test at a p<0.05 significance level. Results Significant differences were found for the surface roughness (p<0.05) with interaction among composite resins and the finishing systems used (p<0.05). Enhance/Biscover finishing and polishing procedure surface was not significantly different from the Mylar strip surface groups (p>0.05). The Mylar strip group was not significantly different from the Sof-Lex/BisCover and Edenta/BisCover groups. The ranking of mean Ra values by materials was as follows: Filtek Supreme Enamel < Filtek A110 < TPH Spectrum < Artemis <Filtek P–60 < Solitaire 2. The ranking of mean Ra values by polishing systems was as follows: Enhance/BisCover < Mylar Strip < Sof-Lex/BisCover < Edenta/BisCover < Sof-Lex < Enhance < Edenta. Conclusion Smoother surfaces were recorded for the Enhance/BisCover and the Mylar strip-formed surface groups. The composite finishing kit Edenta significantly increased the Ra for all tested composites (p<0.05). But after finishing with Edenta, the use of a surface sealant (BisCover) significantly improved the surface smoothness of all tested composites (p<0.05). Use of BisCover surface sealant on anterior and posterior resin composite restorations after finishing and polishing procedures is recommended. Citation Attar N. The Effect of Finishing and Polishing Procedures on the Surface Roughness of Composite Resin Materials. J Contemp Dent Pract 2007 January;(8)1:027-035.

Scanning Electron Microscopy and Roughness Study of Dental Composite Degradation

2012 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 289-294 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luís Eduardo Silva Soares ◽  
Louise Ribeiro Cortez ◽  
Raquel de Oliveira Zarur ◽  
Airton Abrahão Martin
Keyword(s):  
Electron Microscopy ◽  
Scanning Electron Microscopy ◽  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Morphological Changes ◽  
Soft Drink ◽  
Dental Composite ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Scanning Electron

AbstractOur aim was to test the hypothesis that the use of mouthwashes, consumption of soft drinks, as well as the type of light curing unit (LCU), would change the surface roughness (Ra) and morphology of a nanofilled composite resin (Z350® 3M ESPE). Samples (80) were divided into eight groups: Halogen LCU, group 1, saliva (control); group 2, Pepsi Twist®; group 3, Listerine®; group 4, Colgate Plax®; LED LCU, group 5, saliva; group 6, Pepsi Twist®; group 7, Listerine®; group 8, Colgate Plax®. Ra values were measured at baseline, and after 7 and 14 days. One specimen of each group was prepared for scanning electron microscopy analysis after 14 days. The data were subjected to multifactor analysis of variance at a 95% confidence followed by Tukey's honestly significant difference post-hoc test. All the treatments resulted in morphological changes in composite resin surface, and the most significant change was in Pepsi Twist® groups. The samples of G6 had the greatest increase in Ra. The immersion of nanofilled resin in mouthwashes with alcohol and soft drink increases the surface roughness. Polymerization by halogen LCU (reduced light intensity) associated with alcohol contained mouthwash resulted in significant roughness on the composite.

scholarly journals Determinants of enamel decalcification during simulated orthodontic treatment

2011 ◽  
Vol 81 (5) ◽  
pp. 836-842 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Hess ◽  
Phillip M. Campbell ◽  
Allen L. Honeyman ◽  
Peter H. Buschang
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Laser Fluorescence ◽  
Acid Etching ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Untreated Control Group ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Tooth Surfaces ◽  
The Right ◽  
Phosphoric Acid Etching

Abstract Objective: To determine the relative effects that phosphoric acid etching, metal brackets, composite resin adhesives, and filled resin sealants have on enamel decalcification. Materials and Methods: One hundred and fifty teeth were randomly divided into six groups to test the effects of acid etching, brackets, and a composite resin adhesive. The right side of each tooth was sealed. The teeth were submitted to a simulated carious challenge by Streptococcus mutans in a nutritive media for 42 days. Scanning electron photomicrographs (SEMs) were used to qualitatively evaluate the tooth surfaces. DIAGNOdent laser fluorescence was used to quantify the decalcification changes that occurred. Results: SEMs showed normal enamel on the control teeth, etching patterns on the acid-etched teeth, surface degradation on the teeth that had resin, and sealant tags on the sealed side. The untreated control group showed significantly less decalcification (P ≤ .05) than did all groups except the no etch+bracket group. The no etch+bracket group showed significantly less decalcification than did the etch+bracket, no etch+resin, and the etch+resin groups. Acid-etched teeth demonstrated significantly more decalcification (34%) than did those that were not etched. The teeth with resin showed significantly more decalcification (24%) than did those without resin. There was no significant difference between teeth that did and did not have brackets. The unsealed side of the teeth showed small amounts of—but significantly more—decalcification (5%) compared to the sealed side. Conclusions: Acid etching and composite resin adhesives increase enamel decalcification in vitro, while brackets do not. Filled resin sealants protect the teeth from decalcification.

scholarly journals The effect of carbonated beverage to the discoloration of polished and unpolished nanohybrid composite resin

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 11
Author(s):  
Hany Maghfiroh ◽  
Raditya Nugroho ◽  
Niken Probosari
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Artificial Saliva ◽  
Dental Materials ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Control Group Design ◽  
Carbonated Beverage ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Restorative Dental Materials ◽  
Parametric Statistical Test

<p>Nanohybrid resin composite is one of the restorative dental materials that has good<br />aesthetic value and smooth surface. However, resin composite can be discolored due to<br />consuming foods and beverages, one of which is a carbonated beverage. To determine <br />the difference of discoloration of polished and unpolished nanohybrid resin composite<br />after the immersion in carbonated beverage. An experimental laboratories research with<br />the post test only control group design. In the group of polished composite, polishing was<br />done on one side only, while the unpolished composit group, any treatment wasn't done.<br />The total were 32 samples, divided into 4 groups which were immersed in carbonated<br />beverages and artificial saliva for 7 days. The shredded material was replaced every 24<br />hours. The instrument used for testing the discoloration was a spectrophotometer. Data<br />was analyzed by parametric statistical test One-way ANOVA and LSD (Least Significant<br />Different). There were significant differences between the unpolished composite resin that<br />soaked in carbonated beverages and the other groups (p &lt;0.05). Unpolished resin<br />composite are prone to discolorate compared to the polished resin composite</p>

scholarly journals Effect of Dental Finishing Instruments on the Surface Roughness of Composite Resins as Elucidated by Atomic Force Microscopy

2008 ◽  
Vol 14 (5) ◽  
pp. 380-386 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Carolina Botta ◽  
Sillas Duarte ◽  
Pedro Iris Paulin Filho ◽  
Simoni Maria Gheno
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Contact Mode ◽  
Force Microscopy ◽  
Diamond Bur ◽  
Atomic Force ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Student’S T ◽  
Student’S T Test

AbstractRoughness increases significantly after finishing procedures. The aim of this study was to assess by the atomic force microscope (AFM) the effect of finishing instruments on the surface roughness of composite resins. A nanofiller composite resin (Filtek Supreme, 3M–F) and a microhybrid composite resin (Point 4, Kerr–P) were selected. The finishing procedures were done with a 30-blade carbide bur (C) and a 30-μm finishing diamond bur (D). Standardized specimens were produced and divided into six experimental groups (n= 4) according to (1) composite resin, (2) absence of finishing (Mylar matrix–M), and (3) finishing instrument (FM, PM, FC, FD, PC, PD). The mean surface roughness was evaluated by AFM in the contact mode. FM and PM groups were assessed statistically by the Student's T test, and FC, FD, PC, PD groups were submitted to variance analysis (ANOVA), both at 5% significance. The mean surface roughness values, in nanometers, were FM, 23.63 (b); FC, 283.88 (c); FD, 510.55 (d); PM, 12.52 (a); PC, 343.98 (c); PD, 531.64 (d). Microhybrid composite displayed less roughness than nanofiller composite in the absence of finishing procedures. The 30-blade carbide bur produced less roughness compared to the extra fine diamond bur.

scholarly journals The Effects of Combined Micron-Scale Surface and Different Nanoscale Features on Cell Response

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Yi Kang ◽  
Xuelei Ren ◽  
Xin Yuan ◽  
Li Ma ◽  
Youneng Xie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Surface Modification ◽  
Titanium Implants ◽  
Acid Etching ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Submicroscopic Structure ◽  
Proliferation And Differentiation ◽  
Sand Particles ◽  
Nanoscale Features ◽  
Scale Surface

Sandblasting and acid-etching (SLA) and anodization are the two most commonly used methods for surface modification of biomedical titanium. However, there are unavoidable problems such as residual sand particles and lack of hydrophilicity on the surface of titanium sheets treated with SLA technology. In addition, titanium implants showed only the micro/submicroscopic structure. In order to avoid the residue of sand particles in the surface of titanium, the two surface treatments etching treatment (E) and etched-anodizing (EA) on titanium were used, and their surface topography, surface chemistry, and surface roughness were compared with those of the SLA control group. Their wettability and the biocompatibility were also compared and evaluated. The results show that both E and EA samples have the micro/nano hierarchical structure and better wettability compared with the SLA samples. Their performances, especially the E surfaces, were enhanced in terms of cell adhesion, spreading, proliferation, and differentiation abilities.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document