Profilometeric and SEM evaluation of effect of polishing on surface roughness of two composites (silorane-based and methylmethacrylate-based) and a Glass Ionomer

Masumeh Hasani Tabatabaei, Sakine Arami, Ayob Pahlavan, Esmaeil Yasini, Mansoure Mirzae, Hamid Kermanshah, Farnaz Farahat
2013 Journal of Dental Medicine  
and Aims: To evaluate the effect of polishing on surface roughness of silorane-based composite using profilometery and Scanning Election Microscopy (SEM) and compare it with that of a methylmethacrylate-based composite and a glass ionomer. Materials and Methods: In this study, 3 groups (n=28) were tested: specimens of two composites (Filtek P90 and Filtek P60) and a glass ionomer (Fuji IX) which were prepared in polyethylene molds (4 mm diameter×10 mm height). Half of the specimens in each
more » ... were finished with 180-grit silicon carbide paper and the remaining were finished with 180-grit, and subsequently polished with 250, 400, 800, 1000, 2000, and 2500-grit silicon carbide papers. The surface roughness was evaluated using a contact profilometer and then mean (Ra) and maximum (Rmax) of surface roughness were recorded. Then, the surface of 4 specimens of each subgroup was observed under SEM. Statistical analysis was performed with T-test, ANOVA and Dunnett T3 tests. Results: In all materials, Ra was different between polishing with 180 and 2500-grit silicon carbide papers. In 180-grit group, only Ra of Filtek P60 and Fuji IX showed significant difference (P=0.01). In 2500-grit group, there was no significant difference between the Ra of Filtek P60 and Filtek P90 (P=0.56). Conclusion: Polishing is recommended for the glass ionomer and posterior composite restorations.
doaj:f6dbbdd99d30424ab7f22f406c275631 fatcat:mxf66h6pqbhivfg6vutmld5zpy