|
| |
 |
|
| ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2019 | Volume
: 7
| Issue : 1 | Page : 15-17 |
|
Comparative evaluation of surface roughness of novel resin composite Cention N with Filtek Z350 XT: In vitro study
Amith Setty, Jyothi Nagesh, Jayashankara Chatra Marigowda, Anil kumar Shivanna, Sharath Kumar Paluvary, Girish Sooranagenahalli Ashwathappa
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Sri Siddhartha Dental College, Tumkur, India
| Date of Web Publication | 26-Jun-2019 |
Correspondence Address:
Dr. Jyothi Nagesh
#101, 2nd cross, 4th main, income tax layout, vijayanagar, Landmark: Near attiguppe.
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | 4 |
DOI: 10.4103/INJO.INJO_9_19
Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the surface roughness of Cention N and Filtek Z350 XT resin composite. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference observed in surface roughness between the Cention N and Filtek Z350 XT resin composite. Introduction: The use of resin composites in restorative dentistry has markedly increased in recent years due to increased demand for esthetics. The advent of novel fluoride-releasing resin composite Cention N has brought enormous benefits. Finishing and polishing of composite resin restorations are essential steps in restorative dentistry. However, there are no studies available in literatures regarding the effective use of Soflex finishing and polishing with Cention N. Hence, the purpose of the study was to evaluate the surface roughness of novel resin composite Cention N and compare with Filtek Z350 XT resin composite. Materials and Methods: Sixty-four specimens were prepared in Teflon plastic mold of 8-mm diameter and 2-mm thickness, and were divided into group 1 (Filtek Z350 XT [n = 32]) and group 2 (Cention N [n = 32]). They were further subdivided into group 1A (Matrix finish [n = 16]) and 1B (Soflex [n = 16]), and group 2A (Matrix finish [n = 16]) and 2B (Soflex [n = 16]). Surface roughness was measured using surface profilometer. Results: When comparing the mean values and standard deviations of surface roughness of four groups using one-way ANOVA, it was found that there was a significant difference (P < 0.001) in mean surface roughness between the four groups. Conclusion: All the groups presented the values that are below or approximating baseline value for bacterial or plaque retention. Keywords: Cention N, Filtek Z350 XT, Soflex, surface roughness
How to cite this article:
Setty A, Nagesh J, Marigowda JC, Shivanna Ak, Paluvary SK, Ashwathappa GS. Comparative evaluation of surface roughness of novel resin composite Cention N with Filtek Z350 XT: In vitro study. Int J Oral Care Res 2019;7:15-7 |
How to cite this URL:
Setty A, Nagesh J, Marigowda JC, Shivanna Ak, Paluvary SK, Ashwathappa GS. Comparative evaluation of surface roughness of novel resin composite Cention N with Filtek Z350 XT: In vitro study. Int J Oral Care Res [serial online] 2019 [cited 2023 Mar 24];7:15-7. Available from: https://www.ijocr.org/text.asp?2019/7/1/15/261326 |
| Introduction | |  |
An increase in surface roughness can result in surface discoloration, plaque accumulation, gingival inflammation, and caries leading to poor esthetics.
A surface roughness threshold of below 0.2 µm is necessary to prevent bacterial adhesion and plaque accumulation.[1],[2] Finishing and polishing of composite resin restorations are essential steps in restorative dentistry. The structural disparity between the resin matrix and fillers makes it difficult to achieve surface smoothness.
Reduced filler size with better structural uniformity is more favored regarding the surface smoothness of these materials. Hence, there is extensive utilization of resin nanocomposites in restorative dentistry.
The advent of novel fluoride-releasing resin composite Cention N has brought enormous benefits.
Matrix finish achieved during polymerization is known to be the best surface finish with resin composite materials. However, the restorations require further contouring and result in the polymer-rich layer, which require finally finishing and polishing.
A variety of instruments are commonly used for finishing and polishing tooth-colored restorative materials. Aluminum-oxide-impregnated finishing and polishing systems are widely used to finish and polish the resin composite restoration for better outcome (Gedik et al.[3] and Gulati and Gulati[4]). Soflex wheels are flexible, color-coded, two-step finishing and polishing systems made of an elastomer impregnated with aluminum oxide particles.
However, there are no studies available in literatures regarding the effective use of Soflex finishing and polishing with Cention N. Hence, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the surface roughness of novel resin composite Cention N and compare with Filtek Z350 XT resin composite
| Materials and Method | | |
Sixty-four specimens were prepared in Teflon plastic mold of 8-mm diameter and 2-mm thickness.
A glass microscope slide was placed over the polyester strip to minimize polymerization reaction inhibition by oxygen. Polymerization was achieved with variable intensity LED light (blue phase C8 for 20s). In Soflex finish group, specimens were finished and polished for 45s, rinsed for 10s, and air-dried for 5 s. Surface roughness measurements were taken using surface profilometer (Taylor Hobson, Thurmaston, Leicester, England) at different locations. The mean value of the three measurements for each specimen was tabulated and subjected to statistical analysis.
| Results | | |
Tukey post hoc test was conducted for pair-wise comparison between the groups. It was found that there was a significant difference in mean surface roughness between
- group 1A and group 2A,
- group 1A and group 2B, and
- group 1B and group 2B.
There was no significant difference observed in mean surface roughness between [Table 3]
- group 1A and group 1B,
- group 1B and group 2A, and
- group 2A and group 2B.
| Discussion | | |
Finishing is the gross contouring of restoration to obtain the desired anatomy. Polishing is the process carried out to reduce surface roughness and removal of scratches created by the finishing instrument.
There is a statistically significant difference between the tested groups. Hence the null hypothesis is rejected. Group 1A is showing the best surface finish with an Ra value of 0.1631 µm [Table 1] and [Table 2], and [Figure 1]. Both the tested materials with the matrix finish showed better results compared to the groups finished using Soflex finishing and polishing system. This is in accordance with the observations in the studies conducted by Magdy et al.[5] and Aytac et al.[1] | Table 1: Descriptive data showing Ra values (microns) of different groups
Click here to view |
, , ,
Although there is a better surface finish with the use of a matrix with both the tested materials, there is no statistically significant difference between the matrix group and Soflex group [Figure 1]. This is in accordance with the observations in the studies conducted by Kritzinger and Brandt.[6]
Clinically acceptable Ra values for esthetic restorative materials are shown to be less than “0.2 µm” in various studies.[1],[2] In this study, both the test materials are shown to have clinically acceptable surface roughness values.
| Conclusion | | |
Within the limitations of the study, Filtek Z350 XT mylar matrix strip finish group exhibited lowest surface roughness value (Ra). Cention N Soflex finishing and polishing group exhibited highest surface roughness value (Ra).
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| References | | |
| 1. | Aytac F, Karaarslan ES, Agaccioglu M, Tastan E, Buldur M, Kuyucu E. Effects of novel finishing and polishing systems on surface roughness and morphology of nanocomposites. J Esthet Restor Dent 2016;28:247-61.  |
| 2. | Schmitt VL, Rontani RMP, Naufel FS, Ludwig D, Ueda JK, Sobrinho LC. Effect of finishing and polishing techniques on the surface roughness of a nanoparticle composite resin. Braz J Oral Sci 2011;10:105-108. |
| 3. | Gedik R, Hürmüzlü F, Coşkun A, Bektaş OO, Ozdemir AK. Surface roughness of new microhybrid resin-based composites. J Am Dent Assoc 2005;136:1106-12. |
| 4. | Gulati GS, Gulati NK. The effect of different polishing system on the surface roughness of composite materials. J Head & Neck Phy Surg 2014;2:54-64. |
| 5. | Magdy NM, Kola MZ, Alqahtani HH, Alqahtani MD, Alghmlas AS. Evaluation of surface roughness of different direct resin-based composites. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2017;7: 104-9. |
| 6. | Kritzinger D, Brandt PD. The effect of different polishing systems on the surface roughness of a nanocomposite and a microhybrid composite. SADJ 2017;72:249-57. |
[Figure 1]
[Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]
| This article has been cited by | | 1 |
In Vitro Comparison of Surface Roughness, Flexural, and Microtensile Strength of Various Glass-Ionomer-Based Materials and a New Alkasite Restorative Material |
|
| Alper Kaptan, Fatih Oznurhan, Merve Candan | | Polymers. 2023; 15(3): 650 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 2 |
Comparison of physical and mechanical properties of three different restorative materials in primary teeth: an in vitro study |
|
| B. Keskus, F. Oznurhan | | European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry. 2022; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 3 |
Effect of Aging on Surface Roughness and Color Stability of a Novel Alkasite in Comparison with Current Direct Restorative Materials |
|
| B Yazkan, EU Celik, D Recen | | Operative Dentistry. 2021; 46(5): E240 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 4 |
Surface Roughness and Microbial Adhesion After Finishing of Alkasite Restorative Material |
|
| Choa Park,Howon Park,Juhyun Lee,Hyunwoo Seo,Siyoung Lee | | THE JOURNAL OF THE KOREAN ACADEMY OF PEDTATRIC DENTISTRY. 2020; 47(2): 188 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | |
|
 |
|
|
|
Search Pubmed for