Neme A L, Frazier K B, Roeder L B, Debner T L
University of Detroit Mercy School of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, MI 48219, USA.
Oper Dent. 2002 Jan-Feb;27(1):50-8.
Many polishing protocols have been evaluated in vitro for their effect on the surface roughness of restorative materials. These results have been useful in establishing protocols for in vivo application. However, limited research has focused on the subsequent care and maintenance of esthetic restorations following their placement. This investigation evaluated the effect of five polishing protocols that could be implemented at recall on the surface roughness of five direct esthetic restorative materials. Specimens (n=25) measuring 8 mm diameter x 3 mm thick were fabricated in an acrylic mold using five light-cured resin-based materials (hybrid composite, microfilled composite, packable composite, compomer and resin-modified glass ionomer). After photopolymerization, all specimens were polished with Sof-Lex Disks to produce an initial (baseline) surface finish. All specimens were then polished with one of five prophylactic protocols (Butler medium paste, Butler coarse paste, OneGloss, SuperBuff or OneGloss & SuperBuff). The average surface roughness of each treated specimen was determined from three measurements with a profilometer (Surface 1). Next, all specimens were brushed 60,000 times at 1.5 Hz using a brush-head force of 2 N on a Manly V-8 cross-brushing machine in a 50:50 (w/w) slurry of toothpaste and water. The surface roughness of each specimen was measured after brushing (Surface 2) followed by re-polishing with one of five protocols, then final surface roughness values were determined (Surface 3). The data were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA. Significant differences (p=0.05) in surface roughness were observed among restorative materials and polishing protocols. The microfilled and hybrid resin composite yielded significantly rougher surfaces than the other three materials following tooth brushing. Prophylactic polishing protocols can be used to restore a smooth surface on resin-based esthetic restorative materials following simulated tooth brushing.
许多抛光方案已在体外评估其对修复材料表面粗糙度的影响。这些结果对于确立体内应用方案很有帮助。然而,有限的研究集中在美观修复体就位后的后续护理和维护上。本研究评估了五种可在复诊时实施的抛光方案对五种直接美观修复材料表面粗糙度的影响。使用五种光固化树脂基材料(混合复合树脂、微填料复合树脂、可压实复合树脂、复合体和树脂改性玻璃离子体)在丙烯酸模具中制作直径8毫米×厚3毫米的试样(n = 25)。光聚合后,所有试样用Sof-Lex盘进行抛光以产生初始(基线)表面光洁度。然后所有试样用五种预防性抛光方案之一(巴特勒中号糊剂、巴特勒粗号糊剂、OneGloss、SuperBuff或OneGloss & SuperBuff)进行抛光。每个处理过的试样的平均表面粗糙度通过轮廓仪进行三次测量来确定(表面1)。接下来,所有试样在曼利V - 8交叉刷牙机上以1.5赫兹的频率、2牛的刷头力在牙膏和水的50:50(w/w)浆液中刷牙60000次。每个试样在刷牙后测量表面粗糙度(表面2),然后用五种方案之一重新抛光,接着确定最终表面粗糙度值(表面3)。数据使用重复测量方差分析进行分析。在修复材料和抛光方案之间观察到表面粗糙度有显著差异(p = 0.05)。刷牙后,微填料和混合树脂复合材料产生的表面比其他三种材料明显更粗糙。预防性抛光方案可用于在模拟刷牙后恢复树脂基美观修复材料的光滑表面。