The Effect of Prophylactic Polishing Protocols on Surface Roughness of Different Resin Composites

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of prophylactic polishing paste and airpolishingon the surface roughness of different resin composites.Materials and Methods: In this study, three different resin composites were used: nanohybrid(Charisma Topaz, Kulzer GmbH), low-viscosity bulk-fill (Metafil Bulk Fill, Sun Medical) and highviscositybulk-fill (Filtek Bulk Fill, 3M ESPE) resin composites (n=40). Totally 120 disc-shapedspecimens (diameter: 4mm, thickness: 2 mm) were fabricated using Teflon molds. All specimenswere polymerized with LED light-curing device (1000 mW/cm2) according to the manufacturers’instructions. All specimens were polished with a series of aluminum oxide polishing discs (OptiDisc,Kerr) and subdivided into four groups according to the different prophylactic polishing protocols(n=10): 1) no prophylactic polishing protocol (control), 2) polishing paste, 3) air-polishing, 4) airpolishing+polishing paste. Then, the surface roughness (Ra,mm) were measured at 4 differentpoints of the top surfaces by a contact profilometry (Marsurf M 300 C). Data were statisticallyanalyzed with two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni tests (p<0.05).Results: Regarding the polishing protocols, for Metafil Bulk Fill and Charisma Topaz, control(0,550±0,170), (0,365±0,090) and polishing paste (0,615±0,083), (0,424±0,065) groups showedsignificantly lower surface roughness than air-polishing (0,748±0,181), (0,603±0,069) and airpolishing+ polishing paste (0,899±0,110), (0,577±0,087) groups, respectively. However, nosignificant differences were observed between control and polishing paste groups. For FiltekBulk Fill, air-polishing group (0,657±0,059) showed significantly higher surface roughnessthan polishing paste group (0,531±0,093). Regarding the resin composites, for control group,Charisma Topaz (0,365±0,090) showed significantly lower surface roughness than Metafil BulkFill (0,550±0,170) and Filtek Bulk Fill (0,632±0,109). For air-polishing and polishing paste groups,Metafil Bulk Fill showed significantly higher surface roughness than Charisma Topaz. For airpolishing+ polishing paste groups, Metafill Bulk Fill (0,899±0,110) showed significantly highersurface roughness than Charisma Topaz (0,577±0,087) and Filtek Bulk Fill (0,596±0,089).Conclusion: Air-polishing caused higher surface roughness than polishing paste for all testedcomposites. Besides, low-viscosity bulk-fill showed higher surface roughness than nanohybridcomposite for all polishing protocols.