• Hs, Ismail
• Ae, Hill
• Br, Morrow
• Delpriore, K.
• Garcia-Godoy, F.

Abstract

<h4>Purpose</h4>To evaluate and compare the effects of different scaling and polishing techniques on the surface roughness of four different restorative materials.<h4>Methods</h4>72 specimens were prepared, molded to a size of 8.0 by 2.0 mm, and cured according to the manufacturers' instructions. The specimens were stored at 37°C for 24 hours and then thermocycled for 5,000 cycles (from 55°C to 5°C) to simulate 6 months of clinical use. Surface roughness (Ra/average and Rz/max-overall heights) was calculated using a stylus profilometer by subtracting the simulated treatments of hand scaling, ultrasonic scaling, and air polishing from the baseline measurements. The difference in Ra and Rz data were compared independently for each measurement using a two-way ANOVA on Ranks and the Holm-Sidak test, with α< 0.05 used to determine significance.<h4>Results</h4>Irrespective of the scaling or polishing technique employed, flowable bulk fill demonstrated the lowest Ra and Rz values. Hand scaling exhibited the highest roughness and variability among the other techniques, regardless of the materials tested (P< 0.001). Air polishing with glycine resulted in the lowest roughness values across all tested materials, with the exception of the tested bioactive restorative material group.<h4>Clinical significance</h4>Regarding surface roughness, air polishing with glycine may be an effective and safe intervention for periodontal maintenance of subgingival restorations compared to the other tested scaling methods.

Topics

• surface
• ultrasonic
• polishing