Effect of prophylaxis regimens on surface roughness of glass ionomer cements.

This study investigated the surface roughness of conventional (Fuji II Capsulated [FC], GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan), resin-modified (Fuji II LC [FL], GC Corporation) [FL] and highly viscous (Fuji IX GP Fast [FN], GC Corporation) glass ionomer cements [GICs] after exposure to five prophylaxis regimes. The surface roughness obtained was compared to untreated polished specimens (control). The prophylaxis regimes evaluated were rotating brush with pumice-water slurry [PB]; rotating rubber cup with pumice-water slurry [PC]; rotating rubber cup with prophylaxis paste [PP]; rotating rubber cup with prophylaxis gel [PG] and air-powder polishing [PJ]. Forty-eight specimens (3-mm long x 3-mm wide x 2-mm deep) were made for each material. The specimens were stored in distilled water at 37 degrees C for one month, polished with 1200 grit sandpaper using a lapping device and randomly divided into six groups (n=8). They were then stored for an additional two months in distilled water at 37 degrees C prior to exposure to the various prophylaxis regimens. The mean surface roughness value (Ra; microm) was measured with a profilometer. Data was subjected to ANOVA/Scheffe's tests at significance level 0.05. Mean Ra ranged from 0.30 to 1.70 microm for FC, 0.40 to 2.52 microm for FL and 0.36 to 1.79 microm for FN. Regardless of the type of glass ionomer, treatment with PJ resulted in significantly rougher surfaces when compared to the control group. For FC and FN, a significant increase in roughness was observed after treatment with PB and PP, respectively. Glass ionomer restorations may require re-polishing after exposure to some prophylaxis regimens.

Effect of hygiene maintenance procedures on surface roughness of composite restoratives.

This study investigated the effect of various hygiene maintenance procedures on the surface finish of minifill (Filtek A110 [AO], 3M-ESPE), flowable (Filtek Flow [FF], 3M-ESPE) and poly-acid-modified (F2000 [FT], 3M-ESPE) composites. Procedures included pumice-water slurry with rotating brush (PB), pumice-water slurry with rotating rubber cup (PC), prophylaxis paste with rubber cup (ZC), prophylaxis gel with rubber cup (GC) and air-powder polishing (AP). Specimens not exposed to these procedures were used as the control group. For each material, 48 specimens (3-mm long x 3-mm wide x 2-mm deep) were made and stored in distilled water at 37 degrees C for one month. The specimens were then treated with 1200 grit sandpaper using a lapping device, stored for an additional two months in distilled water at 37 degrees C and randomly divided into six groups (n=8). The mean surface roughness (Ra, microm) of the specimens after exposure to the various hygiene procedures was determined using a surface profilometer. Data was subjected to ANOVA/Scheffe's test at significance level 0.05. Mean Ra values ranged from 0.09 to 2.17, 0.06 to 1.38 and 0.38 to 1.25 for AO, FF and FT, respectively. The effect of hygiene procedures on surface roughness was material dependent. Among the various procedures, the smoothest surface was observed after treatment with prophylaxis gel and the roughest with air-powder polishing. For all materials, the use of pumice-water slurry with brush also caused significant roughening. Composite restorations may require re-polishing after exposure to some hygiene maintenance procedures, as Ra values exceeded the critical threshold surface roughness for bacterial adhesion (0.2 microm).