Journal List > J Korean Acad Conserv Dent > v.32(3) > 1056251

Kim, Han, and Cho: EVALUATION ON THE ABRASION RESISTANCE OF A SURFACE SEALANT

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the abrasion resistance of surface penetrating sealant which was applied on a composite resin restoration and to provide proper time to reapply sealant on composite resin surface.
Two hundred rectangular specimens, sized 8 × 3 × 2 mm, were made of Micronew (Bisco, Inc., Schaumburg, IL, U.S.A) and divided into two groups; F group (n = 10) was finished with coarse and medium grit of Sof-Lex discs and BisCoverwas applied B group (n = 190) after finishing with discs. B group was again subdivided into nineteen subgroups. From B-1 group to B-18 group were subjected to toothbrush abrasion test using a distilled water-dentifrice slurry and toothbrush heads. B-IM group was not subjected to toothbrush abrasion test.
Average surface roughness (Ra) of each group was calculated using a surface roughness tester (Surfcorder MSE-1700: Kosaka Laboratory Ltd., Tokyo, Japan). A representative specimen of each group was examined by FE-SEM (S-4700: Hitachi High Technologies Co., Tokyo, Japan). The data were analysed using cluster analysis, paired t-test, and repeated measure ANOVA. The results of this study were as follows;
  1. Ra of F group was 0.898 ± 0.145 μm and B-IM group was 0.289 ± 0.142 μm. Ra became higher from B-1 group (0.299 ± 0.48 μm) to B-18 group (0.642 ± 0.313 μm).

  2. Final cluster center of Ra was 0.361 μm in cluster 1 (B-IM ∼ B-7), 0.511 μm in cluster 2 (B-8 ∼ B-14) and 0.624 μm in cluster 3 (B-15 ∼ B-18). There were significant difference among Ra of three clusters.

  3. Ra of B-IM group was decreased 210.72% than Ra of F group. Ra of B-8 group and B-15 group was increased 35.49% and 51.35% respectively than Ra of B-IM group.

  4. On FE-SEM, B-IM group showed the smoothest resin surface. B-8 group and B-15 group showed vertically shallow scratches, and wide and irregular vertical scratches on composite resin surface respectively.

Within a limitation of this study, finished resin surface will be again smooth and glazy if BisCover would be reapplied within 8 to 14 months after applying to resin surface.

참고문헌

1. Hoelscher DC, Neme AML, Pink FE, Hughes PJ. The Effect of three finishing systems on four esthetic restorative materials. Oper Dent. 23:36–42. 1998.
2. Turkun LS, Turkun M. The effect of one-step polishing system on the surface roughness of three esthetic resin composite materials. Oper Dent. 29:203–211. 2004.
3. Joint 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. 25:311–315. 2000.
4. Yap AUJ, Yap SH, Teo CK, Ng JJ. Comparison of surface finish of new aesthetic restorative materials. Oper Dent. 29:100–104. 2004.
5. 이재 용, 신동 훈. 전∙구치 겸용 혼합형 복합레진의 두 가지 연 마법에 따른 표면조도. 대한치과보존학회지. 28:369–377. 2003.
6. Yap AUJ, Yap SH, Teo CK, Ng JJ. Finshing/polishing of composite and compomer restoratives: effectiveness of one-step systems. Oper Dent. 29:275–279. 2004.
7. Fruits TJ, Miranda FJ, Coury TL. Effects of equivalent abrasive grit sizes utilizing different polishing motions on selected restorative materials. Quint Int. 27:279–285. 1996.
8. Filho NH, D’Azevedo MTFS, Nagem HD, Marsola FP. Surface roughness of composite resins after finishing and polishing. Braz Dent J. 14:37–41. 2003.
9. Roeder LB, Tate WH, Powers JM. Effect of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface roughness of packable composites. Oper Dent. 25:534–543. 2000.
10. Turssi CP, Saad JRC, Duarte SLL, Rodrigues AL. Composite surfaces after finishing and polishing techniques. Am J Dent. 13:136–138. 2000.
11. Lu H, Roeder LB, Powers JM. Effect of polishing systems on the surface roughness of microhybrid composites. J Esthet Restor Dent. 15:297–304. 2003.
crossref
12. Ryba TM, Dunn WJ, Murchison DF. Surface roughness of various packable composites. Oper Dent. 27:243–247. 2002.
13. Tate WH, Powers JM. Surface roughness of composites and hybrid ionomers. Oper Dent. 21:53–58. 1996.
14. Reis AF, Giannini M, Lovadino JR, dos Santos Dias CT. The effect of six polishing systems on the surface roughness of two packable resin-based composites. Am J Dent. 15:193–197. 2002.
15. Setcos JC, Tarim B, Suzuki S. Surface finish produced on resin composites by new polishing systems. Quint Int. 30:169–173. 1999.
16. Erhardt MCG, Magalhaes CS, Serra MC. The effect of rebonding on microleakage of class V aesthetic restorations. Oper Dent. 27:396–402. 2002.
17. May KN Jr, Swift EJ Jr, Wilder AD, Futrell SC. Effect of a surface sealant on microleakage of Class V restorations. Am J Dent. 9:133–136. 1996.
18. Doray PG, Eldiwany MS, Powers JM. Effect of resin surface sealers on improvement of stain resistance for a composite provisional material. J Esthet Restor Dent. 15:244–250. 2003.
crossref
19. Kawai K, Leinfelder KF. Effect of surface penetrating sealant on composite wear. Dent Mater. 9:103–113. 1993.
20. Ramos RP, Chinelatti MA, Chimello DT, Dibb RGP. Assessing microleakage in resin composite restorations rebonded with a surface sealant and three low-viscosity resin systems. Quint Int. 23:450–456. 2002.
21. Ramos RP, Chimello DT, Chinelatti MA, Dibb RGP, Mondelli J. Effect of three surface sealants on marginal sealing of class V composite resin restorations. Oper Dent. 25:448–453. 2000.
22. Dickinson GL, Leinfelder KF. Assessing the long-term effect of a surface penetrating sealant. J Am Dent Assoc. 124:68–72. 1993.
crossref
23. Garman TA, Fairhurst CW, Heuer GA, Williams HA, Beglau DL. A comparison of glazing materials for composite restorations. J Am Dent Assoc. 95:950–956. 1977.
crossref
24. 조영 곤, 최희 영. 복합레진 수복물의 변연 미세누출에 관한 BiscoverTM 전색제의 효과. 대한치과보존학회지. 30:355–364. 2005.
25. Barghi N, Alexander C. A new surface sealant for polishing composite resin restorations. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 24:30–33. 2003.
26. Suh BI. A new resin technology: a glaze/composite sealant that cures without forming an oxygen-inhibited layer. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 24:27–29. 2003.
27. Teixeira EC, Thompson JL, Jeffrey RP, Thompson JY. In vitro toothbrush-dentifrice abrasion of two restorative composites. J Esthet Restor Dent. 17:172–180. 2005.
crossref
28. Wang L, Garcia FC, Amarante de Araujo P, Franco EB, Mondelli RF. Wear resistance of packable resin composites after simulated toothbrushing test. J Esthet Restor Dent. 16(5):303–314. 2004.
crossref
29. van Dijiken JW, Ruyter IE. Surface characteristics of posterior composites after polishing and toothbrushing. Acta Odonto Scandia. 45:337–346. 1984.
30. van Dijiken JW, Stadigh J, Meurman JH. Appearance of finished and unfinished composite surface after toothbrushing. A scanning electron microscopy study. Acta Odonto Scandia. 41:377–383. 1983.
31. Margio L, Rizzi M, La Torre G. 3-D surface profile analysis: different finishing methods for resin composites. Oper Dent. 26:562–568. 2001.
32. Jung M, Voit S, Klinek J. Surface geometry of three packable and one hybrid composite after finishing. Oper Dent. 28:53–59. 2003.
33. Bertrand MF, Leforestier E, Muller M, Lupi-Pegurier L, Bolla M. Effect of surface penetrating sealant on surface texture and microhardness of composite resins. J Biomed Mater Res. 53:658–663. 2000.
crossref
34. De Wet FA, Ferreira MR. The durability of dental glazes. J Prosthe Dent. 44:300–306. 1980.
crossref

Figure 1.
Tooth abrasive machine used in this study.
jkacd-32-180f1.tif
Figure 2.
Histogram for mean surface roughness value and cluster of each group.
jkacd-32-180f2.tif
Figure 3.
F Group (× 500).
jkacd-32-180f3.tif
Figure 4.
B-IM Group (× 500).
jkacd-32-180f4.tif
Figure 5.
B-8 Group (× 500).
jkacd-32-180f5.tif
Figure 6.
B-15 Group (× 500).
jkacd-32-180f6.tif
Figure 7.
B-18 Group (× 500).
jkacd-32-180f7.tif
Table 1.
Materials used in this study
Material Composition Manufacturer
Micronew Ethoxylated Bis-DMA, Bis-GMA, Bisco, Inc.,
Glass frit, silica Schaumburg, IL, U.S.A

BisCover Ethoxylated Bisphenol A Diacrylate, Bisco, Inc.,
Urethane acrylate ester, Polyethyleneglycol Schaumburg, IL, U.S.A
Diacrylate

Sof-Lex disc Polyester film, aluminum oxide 3M ESPE Dental Products,
- Coarse (100 ㎛) / Medium (29 ㎛) size St. Paul, MN, U.S.A.

Bis-DMA: bisphenol A dimethacrylate, Bis-GMA: bisphenol A diglycidylmethacrylate

Table 2.
Group classification by finishing of resin surfaces or/and applying resin sealant on resin surfaces
Group Finishing or/and applying resin sealant on resin surfaces Times of tooth brushing No. of specimens
F
F
Only finishing resin surfaces with Sof-Lex discs

10
B B-IM 10
B-1 900 10
B-2 1,800 10
B-3 2,700 10
B-4 3,600 10
B-5 4,500 10
B-6 5,400 10
B-7 6,300 10
B-8 Applying resin sealant on the finished resin surfaces 7,200 10
B-9 8,100 10
B-10 9,000 10
B-11 9,900 10
B-12 10,800 10
B-13 11,700 10
B-14 12,600 10
B-15 13,500 10
B-16 14,400 10
B-17 15,300 10
B-18 16,200 10

F: Finishing, B: BisCover

Table 3.
Mean surface roughness value (Ra) of each group
Group Ra ± S.D. (㎛) Group Ra ± S.D. (㎛)
F 0.898 ± 0.145 B-9 0.464 ± 0.145
B-IM 0.289 ± 0.142 B-10 0.493 ± 0.222
B-1 0.299 ± 0.148 B-11 0.525 ± 0.139
B-2 0.323 ± 0.105 B-12 0.541 ± 0.182
B-3 0.353 ± 0.119 B-13 0.550 ± 0.198
B-4 0.373 ± 0.175 B-14 0.558 ± 0.159
B-5 0.403 ± 0.169 B-15 0.594 ± 0.198
B-6 0.417 ± 0.200 B-16 0.629 ± 0.215
B-7 0.427 ± 0.154 B-17 0.633 ± 0.208
B-8 0.448 ± 0.137 B-18 0.642 ± 0.313

S.D.: Standard Deviation

Table 4.
3-mean cluster analysis among cluster 1, 2, and 3
Group Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 F p-value
Final cluster centers of Ra 0.361 ㎛ 0.511 ㎛ 0.624 ㎛ 49.705 0.000

Cluster 1: B-IM ~ B-7, Cluster 2: B-8 ~ B-14, Cluster 3: B-15 ~ B-18

Ra: Mean surface roughness value

Table 5.
Paired t-test between Ra of B-IM group and B-1 ~ B-18 groups and Ra of B-8 group and B-9 ~ B-18 groups
Group p-value Group p-value
B-IM B-8
B-1 ~ B-7 > 0.05 B-9 ~ B-14 > 0.05
B-8 ~ B-18 < 0.05 B-15 ~ B-18 < 0.05
Table 6.
Repeated measure ANOVA and increasing rate of Ra among F, B-IM, B-8, and B-15 group
Group Ra + S.D. (㎛) F p value Increasing rate of Ra (%)
F 0.898 ± 0.145a 0
B-IM 0.289 ± 0.142b 23.465 0.000 - 210.72 0
B-8 0.448 ± 0.137c + 35.49
B-15 0.594 ± 0.198d + 51.35

Superscripts of the other letter indicate values of statistical significant difference.

TOOLS
Similar articles