*Hoda Ismail, assistant lecturer, Operative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt.
Ashraf Ibrahim Ali, associate professor, Operative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Mansoura Egypt.
Oper Dent. 2022 Mar 1;47(2):E106-E118. doi: 10.2341/20-007-C.
To evaluate and compare the effects of both manual and ultrasonic scaling on surface roughness of four different base materials, used for elevating dentin/cementum gingival margins of proximal cavities.
Eighty human upper molars with compound Class II mesial cavities, with gingival margins 1 mm below the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ), were divided into four different groups according to the type of the base material used; resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI), glass hybrid (HV-GIC), flowable bulk-fill resin composite (Bulk Flow) and bioactive ionic resin (Activa). This was followed by completing the restorations with the same resin composite. All materials were used according to the manufacturers' instructions. All groups were further subdivided into two subgroups according to the scaling technique: manual (hand) or ultrasonic. All restorative and scaling procedures were performed after fixation of specimens with acrylic beside neighboring teeth to simulate natural contact. The mean surface roughness (Ra, μm) of all specimens was measured quantitatively and qualitatively by a three-dimensional (3D) surface analyzer system at two stages; (1) after thermal cycling for 5000 cycles without scaling and (2) after scaling. Data were statistically analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA), Tukey post hoc tests, and paired sample t-tests (at α=0.05).
For baseline readings, the Bulk Flow group had the lowest Ra values, while HV-GIC group had the highest. RMGI and Activa groups had no statistical significant difference between their Ra values (p>0.05). For post scaling readings, hand scaling had significantly lower Ra values than ultrasonic scaling in all the material groups (p<0.05), except in the Bulk Flow group, where both scaling methods were not significantly different from each other (p>0.05).
Bulk Flow had the smoothest surfaces when cured against a matrix band compared with the other tested base materials. When hand and ultrasonic scaling methods were compared, the latter technique had more detrimental effect on the surface texture of the four tested base materials.
评估和比较手动和超声洁治对四种不同基底材料表面粗糙度的影响，这些基底材料用于提升近中面窝洞的牙骨质/牙本质龈缘。
80 个人类上颌磨牙，具有复合 II 类近中窝洞，龈缘位于牙釉质牙骨质界（CEJ）下方 1mm 处，根据所使用基底材料的类型分为四组：树脂改良型玻璃离子（RMGI）、玻璃混合（HV-GIC）、流动型大体积充填树脂复合材料（Bulk Flow）和生物活性离子树脂（Activa）。然后，用相同的树脂复合材料完成修复。所有材料均按照制造商的说明使用。所有组均根据洁治技术进一步分为两组：手动（手）或超声。所有修复和洁治程序均在将样本用丙烯酸固定在相邻牙齿旁边以模拟自然接触后进行。使用三维（3D）表面分析系统在两个阶段对所有样本的平均表面粗糙度（Ra，μm）进行定量和定性测量：（1）在未经洁治的情况下进行 5000 次热循环后，（2）在洁治后。使用方差分析（ANOVA）、Tukey 事后检验和配对样本 t 检验（α=0.05）对数据进行统计学分析。
在基线读数中，Bulk Flow 组的 Ra 值最低，而 HV-GIC 组的 Ra 值最高。RMGI 和 Activa 组之间的 Ra 值没有统计学差异（p>0.05）。在洁治后读数中，在所有材料组中，手动洁治的 Ra 值均显著低于超声洁治（p<0.05），除了 Bulk Flow 组，两种洁治方法之间无显著差异（p>0.05）。
与其他测试基底材料相比，当用基底带固化时，Bulk Flow 具有最光滑的表面。当比较手动和超声洁治方法时，后者对四种测试基底材料的表面纹理具有更大的不利影响。
