http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?

script=sci_arttext&pid=S 1806-83242012000600004&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en Brazilian Oral Research

Print version ISSN 1806-8324

Braz. oral res. vol.26 no.6 So Paulo Nov./Dec. 2012

http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1806-83242012000600004

DENTAL MATERIALS

Addition of silver nanoparticles reduces the wettability of methacrylate and silorane-based composites

Shahin KasraeiI; Mohadese AzarsinaII

I

Department of Operative Dentistry, Dental Research Center, Dental School, Hamadan Univ of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran II Department of Operative Dentistry, Dental School, International Branch of Shahid Beheshti Univ of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran Corresponding Author

ABSTRACT Incorporation of silver nanoparticles into composite resins is recommended for their reported antibacterial properties, but this incorporation can affect the wettability of such materials. Therefore, this study evaluated the effect of nano-silver addition to silorane-based and methacrylate-based composites on their contact angle. Nanosilver particles were added to Z250 (methacrylate-based) and P90 (silorane-based) composites at 0.5% and 1% by weight. The control group had no additions. SEMEDX analysis was performed to confirm the homogeneity of the nano-silver distribution. Seventy-two composite discs were prepared and standardized to the identical surface roughness values, and then distributed randomly into 6 groups containing 12 samples each (N = 12). Two random samples from each group were observed by atomic force microscopy. Distilled water contact angle measurements were performed for the wettability measurement. Two-way ANOVA, followed by the Tukey-HSD test, with a significance level of 5%, were used for data analysis. It was

observed that wettability was significantly different between the composites (p = 0.0001), and that the addition of nano-silver caused a significant reduction in the contact angle (p = 0.0001). Wettability varied depending on the concentration of the nano silver (p = 0.008). Silorane-based composites have a higher contact angle than methacrylate-based composites. Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that the addition of 0.5% nano-silver particles to the composites caused a decrease in the contact angle of water. Descriptors: Nanotechnology; Silver; Composite Resins; Hydrophobic and Hydrophilic Interactions.

Introduction
Silorane composites are a new generation of restoratives with a ring-opening cationic polymerization mechanism.1-3 These restorative materials have been introduced in an attempt to overcome the polymerization shrinkage of conventional methacrylate-based composites. A low potential to absorb the dyes from daily nutrition is considered to be an advantage of silorane-based restoratives because of their siloxane backbone, which is responsible for the hydrophobic nature of the restorative material.3,4 Measurement of the contact angle at the solid-air-liquid meeting point is a widely known technique used to investigate wettability of solid substrates. Lower wettability of the composite resin surface and less water sorption contribute to the reduction of staining, and is an effective factor affecting plaque accumulation.5,6Silorane-based composites are claimed to have a higher contact angle and a lower amount of plaque adhesion compared to methacrylate-based composites.7 In operative dentistry, secondary caries is the main reason for restoration replacement.8 Therefore, dental materials with low wettability properties are preferable to limit the adhesion and proliferation of pathogens and, consequently, to prevent secondary caries. Although the presence of silver in restorative materials has proved to be effective against streptococci of the human oral cavity, and it might also be useful as an antibacterial additive to dental restorations,9 it is not known whether the addition of silver at the nano scale could interfere with the wettability of dental restorative materials. Furthermore, considering that the incorporation of nanoparticles can affect restoration contact angle measurements,10,11 the aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of the addition of nano silver particles to silorane-based and methacrylate-based composites on this surface property.

Methodology
Experimental design

This experimental study was performed on 72 resin composite discs. Nano silver particles (TopNano Tech Co., Taipei, Taiwan) with an average size of 50 nm were added mechanically to Z250 (3M ESPE, St. Paul, USA) and P90 (3M ESPE) composites at 0.5% and 1% by weight. The control group did not contain any silver. One sample from each test group was prepared for SEM-EDX analysis. Each sample was observed with a scanning electron microscope (Tescan, VegaII, XMU, Brno, Czech Republic) at 350. To assess the wettability of the samples distilled water contact angles on composite resins were measured using a contact angle measuring system. Two-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey-HSD, were used for data analysis. The significance level was set at 5%. Specimen preparation Nano silver particles (TopNano Tech Co., Taipei, Taiwan) with an average size of 50 nm were added mechanically to Z250 (3M ESPE) and P90 (3M ESPE) composites at 0.5% and 1% by weight. Unloaded composite resins were used as controls. The nano particles were mixed continuously with the composites using a plastic spatula for 30 min in a dark room. The samples were prepared in PVC molds of 10 mm diameter and 1.5 mm height. The composite was inserted into the mold and immediately covered with two glass slides from the top and the bottom. The specimen was polymerized by light, using an LED (Demi LED Light Curing System, Kerr Corp., Orange, USA) light-curing unit with a light intensity of 800 mW/cm2, measured with a radiometer for 60 s from both sides. All of the samples were polished with 600, 800, and 1200 grit SiC papers (991A Softlex, Berlin, Germany) to obtain highly polished samples with identical surface roughness (Ra) values. To confirm the Ra was homogenous, two samples from each group were observed randomly by atomic force microscopy (AFM) (Dualscope/Rasterscope C26, DME, Herlev, Denmark) under a load of 0.2 nN and a probe motion speed of 10 m/s. Silver distribution SEM-EDX (Scanning electron microscopy with an energy dispersive X-ray analytical system) analysis was performed to confirm the homogeneity of the distribution of the nano particles in the composite resins. Therefore, one disc-shaped sample from each test group was prepared for SEM-EDX analysis. Samples were broken into two pieces with a chisel-like blade, and the broken surfaces were gold sputter coated (Sputter Coater, Emitech, K45OX Ashford, Kent, England) in a thin 15-nm layer to prevent the sample surfaces from burning during SEM observation. The elemental gold was finally eliminated from the diagram by the system software. The broken surfaces of each sample were observed with a scanning electron microscope. Wettability The wettability of the samples was assessed by measuring the contact angles of distilled water on composite resins with a contact angle measuring system (Sessile Drop, Kruss G10, Hamburg, Germany). The contact angle was defined as the angle at which the liquid interface met the solid surface of the composite disc at four points on each sample, and the mean of the points was reported as the contact angle of each sample. The surface of the drop was monitored constantly, and the contact angle was measured just after 20 s, when the droplet was stabilized. All data were analyzed by SPSS Software (Version 11, SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA) using two-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD multiple comparison tests. The level of significance was set at 0.05.

Results
Figures 1 and 2 indicate the distribution of nano silver particles in composite resins. Figures 3 and 4 are the topographic images of the surface of composite resins taken by atomic force microscopy (AFM).

The means and standard deviations of the contact angles of the studied groups are summerized in Table 1.

Analysis of factorial variance was performed in control and test groups for water contact angles. The contact angle was significantly different between the P90 and Z250 composites. The contact angle of the P90 composite was significantly higher than that of Z250 (p = 0.0001). The addition of nano silver particles reduced significantly the contact angle (p = 0.0001). The interaction of the type of the composite and the concentration of the nano silver was significant (p = 0.006).

Therefore, exclusive of the type of composite, incorporation of different concentrations of nano silver reduced the contact angle significantly (p = 0.008). In the Z250 composite, increasing the concentration of nano silver particles from 0.5 to 1% caused an increase in the contact angle (p = 0.0001), whereas in the P90 composite the difference between the samples with 0.5% and 1% nano silver particles was not statistically significant (p > 0.05).

Discussion
Considering the higher level of sorption of microorganisms by the composite resins compared to other restorative materials,12 some previous studies have suggested the addition of silver as an antibacterial material to the composite resin restorations.10,11 Silver is a safe bactericidal metal, because it is not toxic for animal cells, while it is severely toxic and lethal to bacterial cells.13,14 Concerns have been raised about the adverse effect of nano particle additives on the mechanical properties of composite resins. Previous studies have reported silver compounds added at 10% or greater to dental materials would significantly reduce compressive strength, elastic modulus, and tensile strength.11,15 Therefore, it seems that nano particles added in low concentrations, as in the present study, would not adversely affect the mechanical properties of composite resins. Discoloration and a change in color to a tone of gray are common problems in all materials containing silver, especially composite resins.16,17 Using low concentrations of metal nano particles can prevent severe discoloration of composite resins.16 It has been reported in a previous study that the incorporation of silver microparticulates at concentrations of 0.3% and 0.6% into the composite resin imparted antibacterial properties to the material. Therefore, according to previous studies, we chose concentrations of 0.5% and 1% silver nano particles to impart both the antibacterial properties of silver and the less detrimental effect of these nano particles on the color of composite resins. In the present study, the influence of surface roughness was eliminated by polishing all specimens to a level of clinically acceptable surface smoothness18 (about 1 m), which was confirmed by AFM observations. The contact angle of the silorane-based composite (P90) was significantly higher than that of the Z250 composite, which is indicative of the higher hydrophobicity of P90. This is in accordance with the study of Buergers et al.10 Addition of silver nano particles to P90 and Z250 composites caused a reduction in water contact angle of these composites. Both composites exhibited higher contact angles when the concentration of nano silver was increased from 0.5 to 1% by weight but the contact angles were still lower than that in the control groups. Therefore, depending on the type of the composite, addition of nano particles could significantly change (reduce) the water contact angle of the composites. Contrary to the results of the present study, Brgers et al.11 reported greater hydrophobicity upon the addition of silver to composite resins. They used a flowable composite in their study. Filler characteristics of composites have been considered a significant factor in their water sorption. The amount of water sorption by composite resin depends on the hydrophilicity of the polymeric matrices and the composition of the filler. There is also a correlation between filler load and water sorption.19 The flowable composite used in the study of Brgers et al.(X-flow) contains 38% by volume silicon dioxide filler particles, whereas the Z250 composite

is filled to 60% by volume with zirconia/silica particles, and Filtek Silorane contains 76% by volume quartz and yttrium fluoride filler particles. The contact angle of the flowable composite used in the study of Brgers et al.11 was 66, which increased upon the addition of silver particles. In addition, they used microparticulates of silver with sizes ranging from 3.5 to 18 m. Metallic particles of silver have a large surface energy. The smaller the silver particles, the higher their energy and surface activity. Addition of nanometer sized silver particles, as done in the present study (50 nm) could result in an increase in the surface energy of composite resin, consequently decreasing the water contact angle. It is reported in previous studies that the addition of these particles to hydrophobic materials, such as composite resins, causes an increase in surface energy and a reduction of the contact angle, which is in accordance with the results of the present study.20 The results of our study indicated that the addition of nano silver could reduce the contact angle of the composite resins in comparison to the control groups; however, the water contact angle increased by increasing the nano silver concentration from 0.5 to 1% by weight. It is possible that the addition of more than 0.5% nano particles caused the accumulation of these particles, creating clusters of silver resembling microparticulate silver, and therefore resulting in an increase in hydrophobicity and contact angle in comparison with composites containing 0.5% nano silver. Although the contact angle was reduced by the addition of nano silver to composite resins, numerous other factors affect bacterial adherence. The anti-adherence and bactericidal properties of nano silver-containing composites against mutans streptococci are reported in some previous studies.5,6,11,16,17 Although nano silver particles might be useful as an antibacterial agent incorporated into dental composites, this metal influences the color of the esthetic restorative materials and reduces water contact angles of the heavily filled composite resins. Therefore, addition of silver nano particles into composite resin restorations may not be clinically advantageous.

Conclusions
Within the limitations of the present study, it was concluded that addition of 0.5% and 1% silver nano particles increased the wettability of the methacrylate and silorane-based restorative composites.

Acknowledgements
The authors thank the Dental Research Center and Vice Chancellor of Research, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, for supporting this study.

References
1. Leprince J, Palin WM, Mullier T, Devaux J, Vreven J, Leloup G. Investigating filler morphology and mechanical properties of new low-shrinkage resin composite types. J Oral Rehabil. 2010 May;37(5):364-76. [ Links ]

2. Klautau EB, Carneiro KK, Lobato MF, Machado SM, Silva e Souza Jr MH. Low shrinkage composite resins: influence on sealing ability in unfavorable C-factor cavities. Braz Oral Res. 2011 Jan-Feb;25(1):5-12. [ Links ] 3. Ilie N, Jelen E, Clementino-Luedemann T, Hickel R. Low-shrinkage composite for dental application. Dent Mater J. 2007 Mar;26(2):149-55. [ Links ] 4. Weinmann W, Thalacker C, Guggenberger R. Siloranes in dental composites. Dent Mater. 2005 Jan;21(5):68-74. [ Links ] 5. Kondo Y, Takagaki T, Okuda M, Ikeda M, Kadoma Y, Yamauchi J, et al. Effect of PMMA filler particles addition on the physical properties of resin composite. Dent Mater J. 2010 Oct;29(5):596-601. [ Links ] 6. Namen FM, Galan Jr J, Oliveira JF, Cabreira RD, Costa E, Silva-Filho F, et al. Surface properties of dental polymers: measurements of contact angles, roughness and fluoride release. Mater Res. 2008 Jul-Sep;11(3):239-43. [ Links ] 7. Beyth N, Domb AJ, Weiss EI. An in vitro quantitative antibacterial analysis of amalgam and composite resins. J Dent. 2007 Mar;35(3):201-6. [ Links ] 8. Sarrett DC. Prediction of clinical outcomes of a restoration based on in vivo marginal quality evaluation. J Adhes Dent. 2007;9(Suppl. 1):117-20. [ Links ] 9. Spacciapoli P, Buxton D, Rothstein D, Friden P. Antimicrobial activity of silver nitrate against periodontal pathogens. J Periodontol Res. 2001;36(2):10813. [ Links ] 10. Buergers R, Schneider-Brachert W, Hahnel S, Rosentritt M, Handel G. Streptococcal adhesion to novel low-shrink silorane-based restorative. Dent Mater. 2009 Feb;25(2):269-75. [ Links ] 11. Brgers R, Eidt A, Frankenberger R, Rosentritt M, Schweikl H, Handel G, et al. The anti-adherence activity and bactericidal effect of microparticulate silver additives in composite resin materials. Arch Oral Biol. 2009 Jun;54(6):595601. [ Links ] 12. Papagiannoulis L, Kakaboura A, Eliades G. In vivo vs in vitro anticariogenic behavior of glass-ionomer and resin composite restorative materials. Dent Mater. 2002 Dec;18(8):561-9. [ Links ] 13. Janardhanan R, Karuppaiah M, Hebalkar N, Narsinga Rao T. Synthesis and surface chemistry of nano silver particles. Polyhedron. 2009 Aug;28(12):252230. [ Links ] 14. Fondevila M, Herrer R, Casallas MC, Abecia L, Ducha JJ. Silver nanoparticles as a potential antimicrobial additive for weaned pigs. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2009 Apr;150(3):259-69. [ Links ] 15. Yoshida K, Tanagawa M, Atsuta M. Characterization and inhibitory effect of antibacterial dental resin composites incorporating silver-supported materials. J Biomed Mater Res. 1999 Dec;15(4):516-22. [ Links ] 16. Hernndez-Sierra JF, Ruiz F, Pena DC, Martnez-Gutirrez F, Martnez AE, Guilln Ade J, et al. The antimicrobial sensitivity of Streptococcus mutans to

nanoparticles of silver, zinc oxide, and gold. Nanomedicine. 2008 Sep;4(3):23740. [ Links ] 17. Li L, Deng J, Deng H, Liu Z, Li X. Preparation, characterization and antimicrobial activities of chitosan/Ag/ZnO blend films. Chem Eng J. 2010 May;160(1):37882. [ Links ] 18. Sidhu SK, Henderson LJ. The surface finish of light-cured composite resin materials. Clin Mater. 1993;12(1):11-5. [ Links ] 19. Berger SB, Palialol AR, Cavalli V, Giannini M. Characterization of water sorption, solubility and filler particles of light-cured composite resins. Braz Dent J. 2009;20(4):314-8. [ Links ] 20. Torchinsky I, Rosenman G. Wettability modification of nanomaterials by lowenergy electron flux. Nanoscale Res Lett. 2009 Jul;4(10):1209-17. [ Links ]

Corresponding Author: Mohadese Azarsina E-mail: azarsina2012@yahoo.com Submitted: May 16, 2012 Accepted for publication: Aug 18, 2012 Last revision: Sep 20, 2012

Declaration of Interests: The authors certify that they have no commercial or associative interest that represents a conflict of interest in connection with the manuscript.

Eur J Dent. 2012 April; 6(2): 198205. PMCID: PMC3327495

The effect of one-step and multi-step polishing systems on the surface roughness and microhardness of novel resin composites
Ugur Erdemir,1 Hande Sar Sancakli,1 and Esra Yildiz1
Author information Copyright and License information

Go to:

Abstract
Objectives:

The objective of this in vitro study was to evaluate the surface roughness and micro-hardness of three novel resin composites containing nanoparticles after polishing with one-step and conventional multi-step polishing systems.
Methods:

A total of 126 specimens (10 X 2 mm) were prepared in a metal mold using three nano-composites (Filtek Supreme XT, Ceram-X, and Grandio), 21 specimens of each resin composite for both tests (n=63 for each test). Following light curing, seven specimens from each group received no polishing treatment and served as controls for both tests. The specimens were randomly polished using PoGo and Sof-Lex systems for 30 seconds after being wet-ground with 1200-grit silicon carbide paper. The mean surface roughness of each polished specimen was determined with a profilometer. The microhardness was determined using a Vickers hardness measuring instrument with a 200-g load and 15 seconds dwell time. The data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test and the post hoc Dunn's multiple comparison tests at a significance level of .05.
Results:

Among all materials, the smoothest surfaces were obtained under a matrix strip (control) (P<.05). There were no statistically significant differences among polishing systems in the resin composites for surface roughness (P>.05). The lowest hardness values for the three resin composites were obtained with a matrix strip, and there was a statistically significant difference compared with other polishing systems (P<.05) whereas no statistically significant differences were observed between the polishing systems (P>.05).
Conclusion:

The current one-step polishing system appears to be as effective as multistep systems and may be preferable for polishing resin composite restorations. Keywords: Polishing systems, surface roughness, microhardness, nanocomposites
Go to:

INTRODUCTION
Resin composites are widely used for the direct restoration of both anterior and posterior teeth because of the simple bonding procedures, esthetic demands by the patients, and improved physical and mechanical properties of these materials.1 One of the most significant advances in the last few years is the application of nanotechnology to resin composites. Nanotechnology produces functional materials and structures in the range of 1 to 100 nanometers using various physical and chemical methods. These novel resin composites, which contain nanoparticles, have improved filler technology, modified organic matrixes, and offer a greater degree of polymerization that improves their mechanical and physical properties. 2,3 Regardless of the cavity class and location, a smooth surface finish is clinically important, as it determines the esthetics and longevity of composite restoration.1 A rough surface has a major impact on the aesthetic appearance and discoloration of a restoration,46 plaque accumulation, secondary caries, gingival irritation,7,8 and wear of opposing and adjacent teeth.9 Furthermore, a smooth surface adds to the patients comfort, as a change in surface roughness of 0.3 m can be detected by the tip of the tongue.10 The intrinsic characteristics of resin-based composite materials, such as hardness and strength, are crucial mechanical properties that provide a clinically successful restorative material.11 Hardness, defined as the resistance of a material to indentation, is an important mechanical property that predicts the degree of cure of restorative materials.11,12 Restorations

that are not properly polymerized may result in a softer surface that will retain the scratches created by the finishing procedures. These scratches can compromise fatigue strength and lead to the premature failure of a restoration.13 The smoothest composite surface is obtained under a polyester matrix film.1417 However, the removal of this surface by the usually required finishing procedures will produce a harder, more resistant, and esthetically acceptable surface.17 Finishing is defined as the gross contouring or reduction of a restoration to obtain ideal anatomy. Polishing refers to the reduction of roughness and scratches created by finishing instruments. A variety of instruments, such as carbide and diamond burs, abrasive finish strips, and polishing pastes are frequently used to finish tooth-colored restorative materials.9,14 Clinicians can choose among a wide range of finishing and polishing instruments. Several studies have demonstrated that multi-step aluminum oxide, graded, abrasive, flexible finishing and polishing discs produce the best surface smoothness.9,18,19 Many attempts have been made to develop composite finishing instruments and one-step polishing systems for resin composites. Contouring, finishing, and polishing procedures can be completed using a single instrument, and it appears to be as effective as multi-step systems for polishing dental composites.5,20 The purpose of the present study was to investigate the surface roughness and microhardness of three novel resin composites containing nanoparticles after polishing with one-step and conventional multi-step polishing systems. The null hypotheses tested were that there would be no difference in surface roughness or microhardness (1) among the polished resin composites or (2) among the different polishing systems when used on the same resin composites.
Go to:

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Materials and Preparation of the Specimens

Three nanocomposites were used in this study: Filtek Supreme XT (3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA), Ceram X (Dentsply, DeTrey, Konstanz, Germany), and Grandio (Voco, Cuxhaven, Germany). The properties of these materials are shown in Table 1. The finishing and polishing systems evaluated were PoGo (Dentsply/Caulk, Milford, DE, USA) and Sof-Lex discs (3M ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA). Table 2shows the composition and manufacturers of the polishing systems tested.

Table 1.

Descriptive table of the resin composites used in the study according to the manufacturers data.

Table 2.

The composition and manufacturers of the polishing systems investigated. A total of 126 specimens were fabricated for both tests (n=63 for each test) using a cylindrical metallic mold (10 mm in diameter and 2 mm thick). Each material was inserted into a cylindrical metal mold and confined between two opposing transparent matrix strips. A glass microscope slide (1 mm in thickness) was then placed on the mold, and a constant pressure was applied to extrude the excess material. All the restorative materials were polymerized according to the manufacturers recommended polymerization times (20 s) with a halogen light-curing unit (VIP; Bisco Inc., Schaumburg, IL, USA) operating in standard mode and emitting no less than 600 mW/cm2 as measured with a light meter placed on the curing unit before beginning the polymerization. The guide of the light-curing unit was placed perpendicular to the specimens surface at a distance of 1 mm. Immediately after the light curing, the specimens were removed from the mold and immersed in distilled water at 37C for 7 days prior to the finishing procedures. To reduce variability, all specimen preparations and finishing and polishing procedures were performed by the same investigator. The specimens were randomly divided into three treatment groups (n=7). The matrix strip groups were selected, and others were wet-ground with 1200-grit silicon carbide abrasive paper (SiC) on a rotary polisher (Buehler Metaserv, Buehler, Germany) to provide a baseline before using the polishing systems.

Group I (control group) was made up of specimens that received no finishing or polishing treatment. Group II (PoGo group), the specimens were polished with diamond micropolisher discs under dry conditions with light hand pressure using a planar motion for 30 seconds at 15,000 rpm using a slow-speed hand piece. Group III (Sof-Lex group), the specimens were sequentially polished with medium, fine, and super-fine aluminum oxide-impregnated discs under dry conditions with light hand pressure for 30 seconds. After each polishing step, the specimens were thoroughly rinsed with water for 10 seconds to remove debris, air-dried for 5 seconds, and then polished with another disc of lower grit for the same period of time until final polishing. For each specimen, a new polishing disc and a new polisher were used and discarded after each use.
Surface Roughness Test

Following polishing, the specimens were washed, allowed to dry, and stored in distilled water for 7 days before measuring the mean surface roughness (Ra) values. The Ra value of each specimen was measured 5 times, and the mean Ra values were determined with a cut-off value of 0.8 mm, a transverse length of 0.8 mm, and a stylus speed of 0.1 mm/seconds near the center of each specimen using a surface profilometer (Taylor Hobson Surtronic 3+, Taylor Hobson Ltd., Leicester, England), which was calibrated to meet the standards before each new measuring session.
Microhardness Test

The microhardness was determined using a Vickers hardness measuring instrument (Micromet 5114; Buehler, Lake Bluff, IL, USA). Three indentations were recorded at different points on each specimen no closer than 1 mm to the adjacent indentations with a 200-g load for a 15-s dwell time, and the average value was converted into a Vickers hardness number (VHN).
Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using the 2007 version of the NCSSPASS statistical software package (Kaysville, Utah, USA). As the average roughness and microhardness values were not normally distributed (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test), a non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance was applied to assess significant differences among the experimental groups. Dunns multiple comparison was applied for post -hoc comparisons. The statistical significance level was established at P<.05.

Go to:

RESULTS
Surface Roughness Test Results

The mean surface roughness (Ra) values and standard deviation produced by the matrix strips, PoGo, and Sof-Lex discs on three resin-based composites are listed in Table 3 and Figure 1. For all materials, the smoothest surfaces were obtained under matrix strip (control) rather than the polishing systems tested (P<.05). There were no statistically significant differences between PoGo and Sof-Lex for the Filtek Supreme XT, Ceram X, and Grandio groups (P>.05). In the Filtek Supreme XT and Ceram-X groups, Sof-Lex produced higher roughness values than the PoGo with no statistically significant difference. On the other hand, in the Grandio group, PoGo produced higher roughness values than the Sof-Lex, but the difference was statistically insignificant.

Figure 1.

Surface roughness of the resin composites tested. Polishing systems with the same black bar are not statistically different.

Table 3.

Mean surface roughness values (Ra, m) and standard deviations (SD) for the tested resin composite materials and polishing systems. For the matrix strip groups, Filtek Supreme XT had the smoothest surface, which was significantly different from the Ceram-X and Grandio groups (P<.05). There were no statistical differences among the specimens in the Ceram-X and Grandio groups (P>.05). For the PoGo groups, Grandio showed a significantly higher surface roughness compared to the other composites (P<.05); however, there were

no statistically significant differences among Filtek Supreme XT and Ceram-X groups (P>.05). For the Sof-Lex group, Grandio showed a significantly higher surface roughness compared to the other composites (P<.05); however, there were no statistically significant differences among the specimens in the Filtek Supreme XT and Ceram-X groups (P>.05).
Microhardness Test Results

The mean microhardness values and standard deviations produced by matrix strips, PoGo, and Sof-Lex discs on three resin-based composites are displayed in Table 4 and Figure 2. The lowest hardness values were recorded for the three resin composites under matrix strips, which showed a statistically significant difference compared with other polishing systems tested (P<.05). No statistically significant differences were observed between the polishing systems (PoGo, and Sof-Lex) for all composite groups (P>.05). For all the polishing systems, the ranking for microhardness values from least to greatest were as follows: Ceram-X < Filtek Supreme XT < Grandio (P<.05).

Figure 2.

Microhardness values of the resin composites tested. Polishing systems with the same black bar are not statistically different.

Table 4.

Mean microhardness values (VHN) and standard deviations (SD) for the tested resin composite materials and polishing systems.
Go to:

DISCUSSION
In aesthetic dentistry, the restorative material should duplicate the appearance of the natural tooth. A resin composite restoration can be

imperceptible to the naked eye when its surface closely resembles the surrounding enamel surface. Therefore, polished restorations should demonstrate an enamel-like surface texture and gloss.5 The surface quality of resin composite materials affects plaque accumulation,7,8 physical properties,11 abrasivity, and wear resistance.4,6 Surface roughness is associated with patient discomfort in terms of the tactile perception,10 aesthetic appearance,46 and stain resistance of restorative materials.5,21 However, resin composite materials cannot be finished to an absolutely smooth surface. In the present study, a matrix strip was used to produce standardized specimens. After light polymerization, the specimens that received no polishing served as controls and were compared with groups treated with different polishing systems. Such samples, cured under matrix strips, have also been used as controls in several studies and, similar to our results, the smoothest surfaces were obtained by curing the resin composite materials against a matrix strip.1,16,20 The unpolished surfaces of all tested composites were significantly smoother than those of the polished specimens. Filtek Supreme XT exhibited a significantly lower roughness value, while the roughness of the other composites was not significantly different. However, this resin-rich layer on the top had poor physical, mechanical, and biological properties. Therefore, it should be eliminated during the finishing and polishing procedures.22,23 After the polishing procedures, Filtek Supreme XT and Ceram-X showed the smoothest surfaces with no significant difference among them after both polishing techniques were used in the present study. However, Grandio exhibited significantly higher roughness values after both polishing systems were applied. This observation is in agreement with the results of a previous study20 that showed no significant difference in surface roughness between Filtek Supreme XT and Ceram-X. This result could be related to the specific composition of Filtek Supreme XT, which contains only nanofillers, which is in the same range as the microfillers. The nanohybrid composite material Grandio exhibited the highest surface roughness among the materials examined when it was finished with both finishing and polishing systems. This material contains 1 m glass ceramic particles in the formulation that might have been left protruding from the surface after the finishing and polishing procedures, which could explain its high roughness values. Clinically, some functional adjustment is necessary in almost all restorations; thus, in the present study, finishing was carried out with 1200grit SiC paper under running water to simulate the clinical finishing procedure.20 Finishing and polishing procedures require a sequential use of instrumentation to achieve a highly smooth surface.24 In the present study,

a graded abrasive system that ends gradually with a smaller grain size was selected to obtain an optimum surface finish. Also, a one-step polisher, PoGo, was used to achieve a similar goal but with fewer steps and application time. In the present study, a planar motion was used for all specimens, as a previous study demonstrated that this motion produced significantly lower mean surface roughness values.25 Marigo et al24 reported that the final glossy surface obtained by polishing depends on the flexibility of the backing material in which the abrasive is embedded, the hardness of the particles, and the instruments and their geometry (cusp, discs, and cones). For a resin composite restorative material finishing system to be effective, the abrasive particles must be relatively harder than the filler materials. Otherwise, the polishing system will remove only the soft resin matrix and leave the filler particles protruding from the surface.26 In the present study, PoGo achieved an equally smooth surface compared to Sof-Lex for Filtek Supreme XT and Ceram-X. The superior performance of PoGo may be attributed to the fine diamond powders used instead of aluminum oxide (Sof-Lex) and the cured urethane dimethacrylate resin delivery medium. Diamond is always harder than alumina; thus, it may cause deeper scratches on the surface of the composites, resulting in high roughness.12,19 However, the reverse was found in this study; PoGo produced a smoother surface on Filtek Supreme XT and Ceram-X, with the difference being statistically insignificant, except with highly filled composite Grandio. This result is in accordance with the findings of previous studies.5,20 In contrast with the present study results, Ergucu and Turkun5 found that the PoGo produced an equally smooth surface for Grandio as those for Mylar. However, in the present study, for the Grandio group, Sof-Lex achieved a smoother surface than the PoGo, with no statistically significant difference. In the present study, PoGo was used as a one-step polishing system, but the manufacturer recommends pre-treatment with the Enhance system to obtain favorable results. Some investigators have used this system as a one-step method without any pre-treatment.1,5,20 For this reason, the authors of this study applied PoGo as a one-step method. A clinical study showed that the majority of patients could detect differences of about 0.3 m in mean roughness.10 In this study, PoGo and Sof-Lex created roughness values lower than 0.3 m except with Grandio. This can be attributed to the fact that the effectiveness of polishing systems is dependent on the material, as previously described.1,5 The capacity of disks impregnated with aluminum oxide particles to achieve smooth surfaces is related to their ability to equally remove particles and organic matrix. However, these systems have limitations due to geometry. While using the disks, it is often difficult to efficiently create, finish, and

anatomically polish the contoured surfaces, specifically in the posterior regions of the mouth.17 Profilometers have been used to measure surface roughness in vitro.5,6,14 Although the profilometers provide limited two-dimensional information, it arithmetically calculates average roughness and is used in making treatment choices because it offers various material/polishing surface combinations.26,27However, the complex structure of a surface cannot be fully characterized using surface roughness measurements alone. Therefore, it is not appropriate to draw conclusions regarding the clinical suitability of a finishing instrument exclusively on the basis of roughness average results. However, in combination with atomic force microscopy (AFM) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis, more valid predictions about clinical performance can be made. In the present study, surface roughness measurements were used only for relative comparisons. The finishing procedure, as performed in a clinical setting, can also affect the physical properties of resin composites.28 Examination of removed composite restorations suggests that physio-chemical stresses result in the formation of microcracks, microvoids, or interfacial gaps at the interface between the filler and matrix.29 The surface hardness test has been used in many studies since it has been shown to be an indicator of the degree of polymerization.30 In the present study, to obtain adequate polymerization, all samples were polymerized according to the manufacturers instructions using a halogen curing light. The factors significantly affecting the hardness values of restorative materials include the filler volume fraction, composition, resin type, and polymerization degree. After polymerization, monomers that do not participate in reactions lead to a decrease in hardness, and the hardness of the inorganic fillers directly affects the overall hardness of the materials. Researchers have reported that increased inorganic filler levels result in increased hardness values for resin composites.31 In the present study, the surface created with a Mylar strip exhibited statistically lower microhardness values than those produced by all polishing systems. This finding is also in agreement with a recently published study on resin composites microhardness.20 The present studys results showed that significantly higher microhardness values were achieved with Grandio than with the other resin composites, which had the highest filler content (87% by weight). Similarly, a recently published study conducted by Cekic-Nagas et al32 evaluated the Vickers hardness of five resin composites and correlated the higher Vickers microhardness test values of Grandio with its filler contents by weight and organic matrix composition. No other significant difference in hardness was observed among the different polishing systems tested in all the composite groups.

Further studies are needed to determine which finishing technique is best suited to clinical situations where access is limited, restoration surfaces are not flat, and AFM and SEM analyses are not available to obtain more valid results.
Go to:

CONCLUSION
Within the limitations of the present study, the first null hypothesis tested, that there would be no difference in surface roughness or microhardness among the polished resin composites, was rejected. The nanofil (Filtek Supreme XT) and nanohybrid (Ceram-X) resin composites showed smoother surfaces and lower microhardness than the nanohybrid (Grandio) resin composite regardless of the polishing system used. The second null hypothesis tested, that there would be no difference in surface roughness or microhardness among the different polishing systems when used on the same resin composites, was accepted. One-step (PoGo) and multi-step (Sof-Lex) polishing procedures produced similar quality in terms of surface roughness and microhardness on the same resin composites evaluated. One- and multi-step polishing procedures decreased the smoothness obtained with matrix strips; however, both systems resulted in Ra values below the threshold value of 0.3 m, except for Grandio. Considering the reduced number of steps, the current one-step polishing system appears to be as effective as multi-step systems and may be preferable for polishing resin composite restorations.
Go to:

REFERENCES
1. Yap AU, Yap SH, Teo CK, Ng JJ. Finishing/polishing of composite and compomer restoratives: Effectiveness of one-step systems. Oper Dent. 2004;29:275279. [PubMed] 2. Mitra SB, Wu D, Holmes BN. An application of nanotechnology in advanced dental materials. J Am Dent Assoc. 2003;134:1382 1390. [PubMed] 3. Beun S, Glorieux T, Devaux J, Vreven J, Leloup G. Characterization of nanofilled compared to universal and micro-filled composites. Dent Mater. 2007;23:5159. [PubMed]

4. Cavalcante LM, Masouras K, Watts DC, Pimenta LA, Silikas N. Effect of nanofillers size on surface properties after toothbrush abrasion. Am J Dent. 2009;22:6064. [PubMed] 5. Ergucu Z, Turkun LS. Surface roughness of novel resin composites polished with one-step systems.Oper Dent. 2007;32:185192. [PubMed] 6. Kakaboura A, Fragouli M, Rahiotis C, Silikas N. Evaluation of surface characteristics of dental composites using profilometry, scanning electron, atomic force microscopy and gloss-meter. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2007;18:155163. [PubMed] 7. 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. Dent Mater.1997;13:258269. [PubMed] 8. Ono M, Nikaido T, Ikeda M, Imai S, Hanada N, Tagami J, Matin K. Surface properties of resin composite materials relative to biofilm formation. Dent Mater J. 2007;26:613622. [PubMed] 9. Jefferies SR. Abrasive finishing and polishing in restorative dentistry: a state-of-the-art review. Dent Clin North Am. 2007;51:379397. [PubMed] 10. Jones CS, Billington RW, Pearson GJ. The in vivo perception of roughness of restorations. Br Dent J.2004;196:4245. [PubMed] 11. Gordan VV, Patel SB, Barrett AA, Shen C. Effect of surface finishing and storage media on bi-axial flexure strength and microhardness of resinbased composite. Oper Dent. 2003;28:560567. [PubMed] 12. OBrien WJ. Physical properties in dental materials and their selection. 4th ed. Illinois: Quintessence Publishing Co; 2008. p. 18. 13. Ferracane JL, Mitchem JC, Condon JR, Todd R. Wear and marginal breakdown of composites with various degrees of cure. J Dent Res. 1997;76:15081516. [PubMed] 14. Attar N. The effect of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface roughness of composite resin materials. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2007;8:27 35. [PubMed]

15. Senawongse P, Pongprueksa P. Surface roughness of nanofill and nanohybrid resin composites after polishing and brushing. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2007;19:265275. [PubMed] 16. Baseren M. Surface roughness of nanofill and nanohybrid composite resin and ormocer-based tooth-colored restorative materials after several finishing and polishing procedures. J Biomater Appl.2004;19:121 134. [PubMed] 17. Turkun LS, Turkun M. The effect of one-step polishing system on the surface roughness of three esthetic resin composite materials. Oper Dent. 2004;29:203211. [PubMed] 18. Barbosa SH, Zanata RL, Navarro MF, Nunes OB. Effect of different finishing and polishing techniques on the surface roughness of microfilled, hybrid and packable composite resins. Braz Dent J.2005;16:39 44. [PubMed] 19. Lu H, Roeder LB, Lei L, Powers JM. Effect of surface roughness on stain resistance of dental resin composites. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2005;17:102109. [PubMed] 20. Korkmaz Y, Ozel E, Attar N, Aksoy G. The influence of one-step polishing systems on the surface roughness and microhardness of nanocomposites. Oper Dent. 2008;33:4450. [PubMed] 21. Patel SB, Gordan VV, Barrett AA, Shen C. The effect of surface finishing and storage solutions on the color stability of resin-based composites. J Am Dent Assoc. 2004;135:587594. [PubMed] 22. Morgan M. Finishing and polishing of direct posterior resin restorations. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent.2004;16:211217. [PubMed] 23. Ryba TM, Dunn WJ, Murchison DF. Surface roughness of various packable composites. Oper Dent.2002;27:243247. [PubMed] 24. Marigo L, Rizzi M, La Torre G, Rumi G. 3-D surface profile analysis: Different finishing methods for resin composites. Oper Dent. 2001;26:562 568. [PubMed]

25. Fruits TJ, Miranada FJ, Coury TL. Effects of equivalent abrasive grit sizes utilizing differing polishing motions on selected restorative materials. Quintessence Int. 1996;27:279285. [PubMed] 26. Tjan AH, Chan CA. The polishability of posterior composites. J Prosthet Dent. 1989;61:138146.[PubMed] 27. McLundie AC, Murray FD. Comparison of methods used in finishing composite resin- a scanning electron microscope study. J Prosthet Dent. 1974;31:163171. [PubMed] 28. Leinfelder KF, Wilder AD, Jr, Teixeira LC. Wear rates of posterior composite resins. J Am Dent Assoc. 1986;112:829833. [PubMed] 29. Mair LH. Staining of in vivo subsurface degradation in dental composites with silver nitrate. J Dent Res. 1991;70:215220. [PubMed] 30. Asmussen E. Factors affecting the quantity of remaining double bonds in restorative resin polymers.Scan J Dent Res. 1982;90:490496. [PubMed] 31. Chung KH. The relationship between composition and properties of posterior resin composites. J Dent Res. 1990;69:852856. [PubMed] 32. Cekic-Nagas I, Egilmez F, Ergun G. The effect of irradiation distance on microhardness of resin composites cured with different light curing units. Eur J Dent. 2010;4:440446. [PMC free article][PubMed]

Effects of Delayed Finishing/Polishing on Surface Roughness, Hardness and Gloss of Tooth-Coloured Restorative Materials
A. Ruya Yazici,a Duygu Tuncer,b Sibel Antonson,c Alev Onen,d and Evren Kilince
Author information Copyright and License information

This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.

Go to:

Abstract
Objectives:

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of delayed finishing/polishing on the surface roughness, hardness and gloss of tooth-coloured restorative materials.
Methods:

Four different tooth-coloured restoratives: a flowable resin composite- Tetric Flow, a hybrid resin composite- Venus, a nanohybrid resin composite- Grandio, and a polyacid modified resin composite- Dyract Extra were used. 30 specimens were made for each material and randomly assigned into three groups. The first group was finished/polished immediately and the second group was finished/polished after 24 hours. The remaining 10 specimens served as control. The surface roughness of each sample was recorded using a laser profilometer. Gloss measurements were performed using a small-area glossmeter. Vickers microhardness measurements were performed from three locations on each specimen surface under 100g load and 10s dwell time. Data for surface roughness and hardness were analyzed by Kruskal Wallis test and data for gloss were subjected to one-way ANOVA and Tukey test (P <.05).
Results:

The smoothest surfaces were obtained under Mylar strip for all materials. While there were no significant differences in surface roughness of immediate and delayed finished/polished Dyract Extra samples, immediately finished/polished Venus and Grandio samples showed significantly higher roughness than the delayed polished samples (P <.05). In Tetric Flow samples, immediately finishing/polishing provided smoother surface than delayed finishing/polishing (P <.05). The highest gloss values were recorded under Mylar strip for all materials. While delayed finishing/polishing resulted in a significantly higher gloss compared to immediate finishing/polishing in Venus samples (P <.05), no differences were observed between delayed or immediate finishing/polishing for the other materials (P>.05). The lowest hardness values were found under Mylar strip. Delayed finishing/polishing significantly increased the hardness of all materials.
Conclusions:

The effect of delayed finishing/polishing on surface roughness, gloss and hardness appears to be material dependent. Keywords: Hardness, Roughness, Gloss, Tooth-coloured restorative materials, Finishing, Polishing Go to:

INTRODUCTION
The smoothness of restorative materials surfaces has a great importance in the success and clinical longevity of the restorations.13 It is known that materials with rough surfaces enhance bacterial adhesion and decrease stain resistance.46 Especially restorations in close contact to gingival tissues require surface smoothness for optimal gingival health as well.7 Surface gloss is another factor playing an important role on the appearance of toothcoloured restorative resins.8 Gloss is a desirable characteristic for restorative materials to mimic the appearance of the enamel.9,10 A smooth and glossy surface is generally obtained under a Mylar strip without subsequent finishing or polishing, but unfortunately intra-oral finishing is always required.11 Moreover, such a surface has a higher resin content and will reduce the wear resistance of the restoration over time. Therefore, finishing and polishing of tooth-coloured restorative materials after placement are inevitable procedures that will improve esthetics, early wear resistance, color stability and marginal integrity.1,2,5 Hardness that might be defined as the resistance of a material to indentation is an important mechanical property that predicts the degree of cure of restorative materials. 12,13 Hardness has also been used to predict the wear resistance of a material and its ability to abrade or be abraded by opposing dental structures or materials.14 Restorations that are not properly polymerized may result with a softer surface that will retain the scratches created by the finishing procedures. These scratches can compromise the fatigue strength of the restoration and lead to premature failures.15 Proper finishing and polishing should establish a smooth, glossy surface texture with optimum restoration contour facilitating the removal of plaque. 1618 The timing of the finishing/polishing procedure might have an effect on the physical properties of the restorative materials, and might increase the risk of premature failures. Although several authors have proposed a 24-hour delay before the completion of finishing procedures,19,20 most clinicians perform finishing/polishing procedures immediately after restoration placement. The effect of different finishing/polishing systems on surface hardness and roughness of composite resins has been widely reported in the literature.2123 However, the effect of delaying finishing/polishing procedures is less investigated. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of delayed finishing/polishing on the surface hardness, roughness and gloss of different groups of tooth-coloured restorative materials. Go to:

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Four different tooth-coloured restorative materials were used in the study: a flowable resin composite- Tetric Flow (Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Schaan, Liechtenstein); a hybrid resin composite- Venus (Heraus Kulzer, Dormagen, Germany); a nanohybrid resin compositeGrandio (Voco, Cuxhaven, Germany) and a polyacid modified resin composite- Dyract Extra (Dentsply Caulk, Milford, DE, USA) (Table 1). All materials were of A2 shades. A teflon mold (10-mm in diameter and 2-mm thick) was used to prepare 30 specimens from each of the restorative materials. To prepare each specimen, the mold was placed on a Mylar strip covered glass slide and the uncured resin composites were placed in the molds. Another Mylar strip was then placed over the mold and the material was compressed with a glass slide, thus extruding the excess resin composite and forming a flat surface. The samples were polymerized from the top of the mold with a tungsten halogen light (Hilux, Benlioglu, Ankara, Turkey) according to the manufacturers recommended polymeri zation times. The intensity of the curing light was 550 mW/cm2, as verified with a hand-held radiometer (Curing Radiometer Model 100, Demetron/Kerr, Danbury, CT, USA). A control group of 10 specimens of each material received no finishing and polishing procedures after being cured under Mylar strip. The remaining 20 specimens from each restorative material were randomly divided into two groups (n=10/group) according to the finishing/polishing time. Ten specimens from each restorative material were finished and polished immediately after the polymerization; the other 10 were finished and polished 24 hours later.

Table 1 Restorative materials and compositions (Bis-GMA= Bisphenol-glycidyl methacrylate; BisGA= Bisphenol-glycidyl acrylate; UDMA= urethane dimethacrylate; TEGDMA= triethylene glycol dimethacrylate). Finishing was performed with 30 m diamond finishing burs (Diatech, Diatech Dental AC, Heerbrugg, Switzerland) with a high-speed hand-piece at 40,000 rpm under three-way water-cooling. The application time was limited to 10 seconds. A new finishing bur was used for every five samples. Medium to super-fine aluminum oxide discs (Sof-Lex, 3M, St. Paul, MN, USA) were used for polishing. The aluminum oxide discs were discarded after each use. Each disc was used in a circular motion with light pressure for 20 seconds with a slow-speed hand piece (NSK Ti-Max Electric Handpiece, Japan). The rpm was set to 5,000. To control the variability, one investigator, blinded to which material was being processed, performed all the finishing and polishing procedures in a randomized order. All groups were stored in saline for two weeks at 37C before analyses.24,25

Measurement of surface roughness

The surface roughness of each specimen was recorded using a laser profilometer (MicroXAM Interferometric Surface Profiler, Dublin, Ireland) by a second operator who was also blind to the restorative materials and finishing/polishing procedures. The average surface roughness (Ra, m) was measured using MapVue AE software, Version 1.20. Three tracings at different locations on each-specimen were recorded. Profilometer results were analyzed taking the Ra value into consideration
Measurement of gloss

Gloss measurements, expressed in gloss units (GU) were performed using a small-area glossmeter (Nova-Curve, Rhopoint Instrumentation, East Sussex, UK), with a square measurement area of 22 mm and 600 geometry. Environment influence was eliminated using a custom-made 10-mm thick black polytetrafluoroethylene mold with the specimen size hole in its center, which has been placed on the top of the specimens during measurements. Three measurements were performed for each specimen.
Measurement of surface hardness

Microhardness measurements were performed using a Vickers indentor attached to a microhardness tester (Microhardness Testers HMV2, Shimadzu Corporation, Kyota, Japan). The indentation load was 100 g with a 10 seconds dwell time. Three indentations were taken from each specimen that were equally spaced over a circle and not closer than 1 mm adjacent indentations or the margin of the specimen. The average hardness was calculated for each specimen.
Statistical analysis

Means and standard deviations were calculated for surface roughness, gloss and surface hardness. Data were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis test for surface roughness and hardness. Data for gloss was analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey test. All statistical analysis was conducted at a significance level of P <.05. Go to:

RESULTS
The mean Ra values for the four restorative materials at baseline, after immediate finishing/polishing and delayed finishing/polishing are displayed in Table 2. For all materials, the smoothest surfaces were obtained under Mylar strip (control). There was no statistical difference in surface roughness values of immediate and delayed finished/polished Dyract Extra samples (P>.05). While immediately finished/polished Venus and Grandio samples showed significantly higher roughness values than delayed polishing, immediately finishing/polishing caused smoother surface in Tetric Flow samples (P <.05).

Table 2 Means and standard deviations of surface roughness (Ra, m) for each restorative material. The highest gloss values were recorded under Mylar strip for all materials (Table 3). Delayed finishing/polishing resulted in a significantly higher gloss compared to immediate finishing/polishing in Venus samples (P <.05). No difference in gloss measurements was observed between delayed or immediate finishing/polishing for the rest of all materials evaluated (P>.05).

Table 3 Average gloss values (GU) and standard deviations for each restorative material. Table 4 presents Vickers hardness values of the baseline, immediate and delayed finished/polished specimens. The lowest hardness values were recorded for all restorative materials under Mylar strip. The highest hardness values were reached when finishing/polishing was delayed (P <.05).

Table 4 Mean surface hardness and standard deviations for each restorative material. Go to:

DISCUSSION
The concern about the possible detrimental effects of immediate finishing/polishing procedures on restorative materials has inspired this study. In the present study, finishing

and polishing were completed immediately after curing of the restorative materials, because this is a common method in most clinical situations. It has been stated that finishing can be performed immediately after a light-cured resin composite material that has been polymerized, or 5 minutes after the initial hardening of a self-cured material.11,26 On the other hand, several studies have concluded that microleakage is reduced if polishing of the margins is delayed because of the hydroscopic expansion of the material that reduces the contraction gaps.19,27 The surface roughness of a restoration is important for patients comfort, esthetics, plaque retention and staining.46 The size and composition of the filler particles of the restoratives determine the materials ability to be finished and polished, t hus the smoothness of the restoration.28,29 As expected, the smoothest surface was obtained under Mylar strip. During finishing/polishing, the matrix supporting inorganic filler particles might wear away leaving irregularities projecting from the surface. This study showed that immediately finishing/polishing significantly increased the roughness of Venus and Grandio samples but not of Tetric Flow samples. This phenomenon can be explained by the difference in filler content per volume of Tetric Flow resin composite. It might also be partially contributed to the lower degree of polymerization and viscosity of the UDMA monomer in the Tetric Flow material.30 The different finishing/polishing times had no effect on the roughness of the polyacid modified resin composite tested compared to the resin composites investigated. A possible explanation for this finding may be the difference in the filler content and matrix composition of the different materials. The critical threshold surface roughness for bacterial adhesion is 0.2 m.4 Only Grandio samples showed surface roughness values greater than 0.2 m after immediate finishing/polishing. After delayed finishing/polishing, Grandio specimens roughness values were above this critical threshold. This finding was unexpected since Grandio is a nanohybrid composite that contains silicium dioxide particles of 20-50 nm. However, this material also contains 1 m glass ceramic particles that might have been left protruding from the surface after the finishing and polishing procedures. Jung et al23 evaluated the surface texture of four nanohybrid and one hybrid composite after finishing, and found that except for one nanocomposite, all materials were smoother than the hybrid composite tested. In another study evaluating the effect of different polishing systems on the surface roughness and the gloss of various resin composites, the microfill (Durafill), nanofill (Filtek Supreme), and microhybrid (Esthet-X) resin composites showed smoother and glossier surfaces than the minifill hybrids (Z100 and Z250) tested.9Silikas et al31 compared the surface properties of microhybrid and nanohybrid composites and found no difference in surface roughness of these materials. However, the system used for finishing and polishing also should be taken into account. The types of finishing polishing systems and abrasives might have influenced the roughness and gloss of the materials. On the other hand, we only tested one nano hybrid resin composite. This result could not be extrapolated to all nanohybrid composites. Moreover, many studies concluded that the effectiveness of polishing systems is material dependent.32,33 Our aim was to investigate the effect of finishing/polishing time on different restorative materials, not to compare the different polishing methods.

Yap et al34 compared the effects of immediate and delayed finishing/polishing procedures on the surface roughness and hardness of tooth-coloured restoratives. Contrary to our findings, they reported that delayed finishing/polishing of polyacid-modified composite resins resulted in a smoother surface. They attributed this result to the maturity of the restorative material at the time of finishing/polishing. They also reported that the surface roughness of resin composites was generally not influenced by the finishing/polishing time. In the present study, we found that delayed finishing/polishing significantly increased the hardness of the tested materials. Our results are also corroborated by another investigation which also proved that delayed finishing/polishing of resin composites generally resulted in a surface of similar or even harder than that obtained with immediate finishing/polishing.34 On the other hand, Venturini et al25 reported that immediate polishing did not produce a negative influence on the surface roughness, hardness and microleakage of a microfilled (Filtek A110) and a hybrid (Filtek Z250) resin composite compared to delayed polishing. In a recent study, contrary to our findings, the specimens with delayed polishing showed lower hardness results compared to specimens that were polished immediately.35 The authors attributed this result to the loss of surface properties after polymerization using a delayed polishing procedures. They also recommended immediate polishing since this procedure reduces the number of clinical sessions and the wellness of the patients. It might be expected that smoother surfaces would demonstrate higher gloss values. Lu et al5 stated that the gloss was directly influenced by the surface roughness. On the other hand, Lee et al36 found that the gloss was not only influenced by the surface roughness but also by other factors such as the difference in refractive indices of the resin matrix and the fillers. In the present study, similar to the roughness findings, the highest gloss was obtained under Mylar strip polymerized samples. Although, except for Dyract Extra, finishing/polishing time has changed the roughness of the tested materials, significant differences in gloss values were only observed in Venus samples. Therefore, it might be concluded that the composition of the material rather than the roughness might have an effect on the gloss. Heintze et al37 also stated that the gloss was material dependent. Mechanical profilometers that provide limited two-dimensional informations are generally employed to measure surface roughness for in vitro investigations.9,10,18,21,22 The main disadvantage of a mechanical profilometer is that the stylus can not detect irregularities that are smaller than its own diameter. In the present study, a 3-D laser surface profilometer was chosen to evaluate the surface roughness, which provides non-contact, rapid, quantitative surface measurements, thus there is no deterioration of the sample.38 Additionally, the 3-D laser profilometer uses a beam of light that sweeps the sample surface detecting even angstrom level variations more precisely.38 Go to:

CONCLUSIONS
Under the limitations of this in vitro study, it might be concluded that:

For all the restorative materials tested, the smoothest surfaces and highest gloss values were obtained under a Mylar strip and without any finishing/polishing procedure. The effect of delayed finishing/polishing on the surface roughness and the gloss of the resin composites tested was material dependent. The surface hardness of the resin composites tested increased when finishing and polishing procedures were delayed. Go to:

REFERENCES
1. Anusavice KJ, Antonson SA. Finishing and Polishing Materials in Philips Science of Dental Materials.11th ed. Philadephia: WB Saunders Co; 2003. pp. 352353. 2. Morgan M. Finishing and polishing of direct posterior resin restorations. Prac Proced Aesth Dent.2004;6:211217. 3. Setcos JC, Tarim B, Suzuki S. Surface finish produced on resin composites by new polishing systems.Quintessence Int. 1999;30:169173. [PubMed] 4. 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. Dent Mater.1997;13:258269. [PubMed] 5. Lu H, Roeder LB, Lei L, Powers JM. Effect of surface roughness on stain resistance of dental resin composites. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2005;17:102108. [PubMed] 6. Reis A, Giannini M, Lovadino J, Ambrosano G. Effects of various finishing systems on the surface roughness and staining susceptibility of packable composite resins. Dent Mater. 2003;19:1218.[PubMed] 7. Lai YL, Lin YC, Chang CS, Lee SY. Effects of sonic and ultrasonic scaling on the surface roughness of tooth-colored restorative materials for cervical lesions. Oper Dent. 2007;32:273278. [PubMed] 8. OBrien WJ, Johnston WM, Fanian F, Lambert S. The surface roughness and gloss of composites. J Dent Res. 1984;63:685688. [PubMed] 9. Da Costa J, Ferracane J, Paravina RD, Mazur RF, Roeder L. The effect of different polishing systems on surface roughness and gloss of various resin composites. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2007;19:214226.[PubMed] 10. Paravina RD, Roeder L, Lu H, Vogel K, Powers JM. Effect of finishing and polishing procedures on surface roughness, gloss and color of resin-based composites. Am J Dent. 2004;17:262266. [PubMed] 11. Craig RG, Ward ML. Restorative Dental Materials. 10th ed. Mosby; St. Louis, USA: 1997.

12. Rueggeberg FA, Craig RG. Correlation of parameters used to estimate monomer conversion in a light-cured composite. J Dent Res. 1988;67:932937. [PubMed] 13. OBrien WJ. Physical Properties in Dental Materials and Their Selection. 4th ed. Illinois: Quintessence Publishing Co.; 2008. p. 18. 14. Anusavice KJ. Physical Properties of Dental Materials in Philips Science of Dental Materials. 10th ed. Philadephia: Saunders; 2003. p. 43. 15. Ferracane JL, Mitchem JC, Condon JR, Todd R. Wear and marginal breakdown of composites with various degrees of cure. J Dent Res. 1997;76:15081516. [PubMed] 16. Stanford WB, Fan PL, Wozniak WT, Stanford JW. Effect of finishing on color and gloss of composites with different fillers. J Am Dent Assoc. 1985;110:211213. [PubMed] 17. Inokoshi S, Burrow MF, Kataumi M, Yamada T, Takatsu T. Opacity and color changes of tooth-colored restorative materials. Oper Dent. 1996;21:7380. [PubMed] 18. Turkun LS, Turkun M. The effect of one-step polishing system on the surface roughness of three esthetic resin composite materials. Oper Dent. 2004;29:203211. [PubMed] 19. Irie M, Suzuki K. Effects of delayed polishing on gap formation of cervical restorations Oper Dent.2002;27:5965. 20. Lopes GC, Franke M, Maia HP. Effect of finishing time and techniques on marginal sealing ability of two composite restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2002;88:32 36. [PubMed] 21. zgnaltay G, Yazici AR, Grc J. Effect of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface roughness of new tooth-colored restoratives. J Oral Rehabil. 2003;30:218 224. [PubMed] 22. Baseren M. Surface roughness of nanofill and nanohybrid composite resin and ormocerbased tooth-colored restorative materials after several finishing and polishing procedures. J Biomater Appl.2004;19:121133. [PubMed] 23. Jung M, Sehr K, Klimek J. Surface texture of four nanofilled and one hybrid composite after finishing. Oper Dent. 2007;32:4552. [PubMed] 24. Chung SM, Yap AUJ. Effects of surface finish on indentation modulus and hardness of dental composite restoratives. Dent Mater. 2005;21:10081016. [PubMed] 25. Venturini D, Cenci MS, Demarco FF, Camacho GB, Powers JM. Effect of polishing techniques and time on surface roughness, hardness and microleakage of resin composite restorations. Oper Dent.2006;31:1117. [PubMed] 26. Roberson TM, Heymann HO, Swift EJ. Sturdevants Art and Science of Operative Dentistry. 4th edition. St. Louis: Mosby; 2000. p. 581.

27. Hansen EK, Asmussen E. Effect of postponed polishing on marginal adaptation of resin used with dentin-bonding agent. Scand J Dent Res. 1988;96:260264. [PubMed] 28. Jung M, Voit S, Klimek J. Surface geometry of three packable and one hybrid composite after finishing. Oper Dent. 2003;28:5359. [PubMed] 29. Roeder LB, Tate WH, Powers JM. Effect of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface roughness of packable composites. Oper Dent. 2000;25:534543. [PubMed] 30. Gonalves L, Filho JD, Guimares JG, Poskus LT, Silva EM. Solubility, salivary sorption and degree of conversion of dimethacrylate-based polymeric matrixes. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater.2008;85:320325. [PubMed] 31. Silikas N, Kavvadia K, Eliades G, Watts D. Surface characterization of modern resin composites: A multitechnique approach. Am J Dent. 2005;18:95100. [PubMed] 32. Utali MB, Arisu HD, Omrl H, Eligzelo lu E, Ozcan S, Ergun G. The effect of different finishing and polishing systems on the surface roughness of different composite restorative materials. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2007;8:8996. 33. Scheibe KG, Almeida KG, Medeiros IS, Costa JF, Alves CM. Effect of different polishing systems on the surface roughness of microhybrid composites. J Appl Oral Sci. 2009;17:2126. [PubMed] 34. Yap AU, Sau CW, Lye KW. Effects of finishing/polishing time on surface characteristics of tooth-coloured restoratives. J Oral Rehabil. 1998;25:456461. [PubMed] 35. Cenci MS, Venturini D, Pereira-Cenci T, Piva E, Demarco FF. The effect of polishing techniques and time on the surface characteristics and sealing ability of resin composite restorations after one-year storage. Oper Dent. 2008;33:169176. [PubMed] 36. Lee YK, Lu H, Oguri M, Powers JM. Changes in gloss after simulated generalized wear of composite resins. J Prosthet Dent. 2005;94:370376. [PubMed] 37. Heintze SD, Forjanic M, Rousson V. Surface roughness and gloss of dental materials as a function of force and polishing time in vitro. Dent Mater. 2006;22:146165. [PubMed] 38. Joniot SB, Gregoire GL, Auther AM, Roques YM. Three-dimensional optical profilometry analysis of surface states obtained after finishing sequences for three composite resins. Oper Dent. 2000;25:311315. [PubMed]