Abstract
Aim: The study examined how different dry and lubricated polishing protocols impact the gloss, roughness, and material loss of nanoparticle resin composites, before and after simulated toothbrushing. Methods: One hundred cylindrical resin composite specimens were prepared and divided into an unpolished group and three test groups: Dimanto (DIM), Sof-Lex Pop-On (SOF), and Astrobrush (ASTRO). These groups underwent polishing dry, with water, or with or petroleum jelly. Surface parameters including gloss (Novo-Curve – Rhopoint TM, England), roughness, and material loss (MaxSurf XT 20, MahrGoettingen, Germany) were evaluated at four stages: baseline, polishing, simulated toothbrushing, and repolishing. Data were submitted to repeated measures ANOVA (P<0.05). Results: Lubrication did not affect the studied parameters after polishing with DIM. SOF showed improved performance without lubricants, whereas ASTRO achieved higher gloss and lower roughness when lubricated. In terms of surface material loss, DIM exhibited less material loss when used with petroleum jelly, SOF had reduced material loss when used with water, and ASTRO showed the most material loss when lubricated with petroleum jelly. Conclusion: The gloss, roughness, and surface material loss of the nanoparticle resin composite are influenced by the type of polisher used and the choice of lubricant. However, none of the differences observed surpassed the established thresholds for roughness or gloss perception, suggesting that these protocols are potentially viable for clinical application. Despite detectable differences among the polishing systems and lubricant combinations, all tested options are clinically acceptable. None of them exceeded the thresholds for biofilm accumulation or perceptible differences in surface gloss.
References
Lee I, Chang J, Ferracane J. Slumping resistance and viscoelasticity prior to setting of dental composites. Dent Mater. 2008 Dec;24(12):1586-93. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2008.03.014.
Peumans M, Politano G, Van Meerbeek B. Effective protocol for daily high-quality direct posterior composite restorations. cavity preparation and design. J Adhes Dent. 2020;22(6):581-96. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a45515.
Chowdhury D, Mukherjee S, Maity I, Mazumdar P. Surface roughness and microhardness evaluation of composite resin restorations subjected to three different polishing systems immediately and after 24 h: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent Endod. 2023 Nov-Dec;26(6):639-45. doi: 10.4103/JCDE.JCDE_106_23.
Lippert VF, Bresciani E, Mota EG, Bittencourt HR, Kramer PF, Spohr AM. In vitro comparison of one-step, two-step, and three-step polishing systems on the surface roughness and gloss of different resin composites. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2024 May;36(5):785-95. doi: 10.1111/jerd.13189. Epub 2023 Dec 21.
Zica JSS, Fernandes IA, Faria FBA, Ferreira FC, Albuquerque NAR, Giovannini JFBG, et al. Comparative analysis of the surface roughness of conventional resins and filling after immersion in mouthwashes. Braz J Oral Sci. 2020;19:e208569. doi: 10.20396/bjos.v19i0.8658569.
Zielińska A, Carreiró F, Oliveira AM, Neves A, Pires B, Venkatesh DN, et al. Polymeric nanoparticles: production, characterization, toxicology and ecotoxicology. Molecules. 2020 Aug;25(16):3731. doi: 10.3390/molecules25163731.
Toniolo J, Grasel RR, Rodrigues JA. Usefulness and satisfaction of a digital learning tool for caries detection using ICDAS. Braz Dent Sci. 2023;26(3):e3819. doi: 10.4322/bds.2023.e3819.
AlQahtani MQ. The effect of a 10% carbamide peroxide bleaching agent on the microhardness of four types of direct resin-based restorative materials. Oper Dent. 2013 May-Jun;38(3):316-23. doi: 10.2341/12-224-L. Epub 2012 Oct 23.
Roberts WE, Mangum JE, Schneider PM. Pathophysiology of Demineralization, Part I: Attrition, Erosion, Abfraction, and Noncarious Cervical Lesions. Curr Osteoporos Rep. 2022 Feb;20(1):90-105. doi: 10.1007/s11914-022-00722-1.
Davidson CL, Duysters PP, De Lange C, Bausch JR. Structural changes in composite surface material after dry polishing. J Oral Rehabil. 1981 Sep;8(5):431-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.1981.tb00517.x.
Kurt A, Cilingir A, Bilmenoglu C, Topcuoglu N, Kulekci G. Effect of different polishing techniques for composite resin materials on surface properties and bacterial biofilm formation. J Dent. 2019 Nov;90:103199. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2019.103199.
Nasoohi N, Hoorizad M, Tabatabaei SF. Effects of wet and dry finishing and polishing on surface roughness and microhardness of composite resins. J Dent (Tehran). 2017 Mar;14(2):69-75.
Rizzante FAP, Duque JA, Duarte MAH, Mondelli RFL, Mendonça G, Ishikiriama SK. Polymerization shrinkage, microhardness and depth of cure of bulk fill resin composites. Dent Mater J. 2019 Jun 1;38(3):403-410. doi: 10.4012/dmj.2018-063.
Jung M, Eichelberger K, Klimek J. Surface geometry of four nanofiller and one hybrid composite after one-step and multiple-step polishing. Oper Dent. 2007 Jul-Aug;32(4):347-55. doi: 10.2341/06-101.
Schmidlin PR, Sener B, Lutz F. Cleaning and polishing efficacy of abrasive-bristle brushes and a prophylaxis paste on resin composite material in vitro. Quintessence Int. 2002 Oct;33(9):691-9.
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 Jul;13(4):258-69. doi: 10.1016/s0109-5641(97)80038-3.
Rocha RS, Oliveira AC, Caneppele TMF, Bresciani E. Effect of artificial aging protocols on surface gloss of resin composites. Int J Dent. 2017;2017:3483171. doi: 10.1155/2017/3483171.
Jones CS, Billington RW, Pearson GJ. Interoperator variability during polishing. Quintessence Int. 2006 Mar;37(3):183-90.
Stoddard JW, Johnson GH. An evaluation of polishing agents for composite resins. J Prosthet Dent. 1991 Apr;65(4):491-5. doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(91)90286-6.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2024 Vanessa de Faria, Jefferson Pires da Silva Júnior, Taciana Marco Ferraz Caneppele, Eduardo Bresciani