• Users Online: 130
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
 
Table of Contents
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


Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Sri Siddhartha Dental College, Tumkur, India

Date of Web Publication26-Jun-2019

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Jyothi Nagesh
#101, 2nd cross, 4th main, income tax layout, vijayanagar, Landmark: Near attiguppe.
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/INJO.INJO_9_19

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 

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 2019 Aug 20];7:15-7. Available from: http://www.ijocr.org/text.asp?2019/7/1/15/261326




  Introduction Top


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 Top


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 Top


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 Top


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
,
Table 2: Intergroup comparison

Click here to view
,
Table 3: Pairwise comparison

Click here to view
,
Figure 1: Bar graph showing mean Ra values

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 Top


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 Top

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.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
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.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
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.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
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.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
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.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
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.  Back to cited text no. 6
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]



 

Top
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
   Abstract
  Introduction
  Materials and Method
  Results
  Discussion
  Conclusion
   References
   Article Figures
   Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed165    
    Printed20    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded44    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal