Objectives: Surface roughness of a hybrid ionomer (FLC) and 2 composites (TPH, Point-4) after polishing with an air polisher (Prophy Jet, PJ) and 3 different prophylactic polishing agents (fine pumice, FP; medium pumice, MP; and coarse pumice, CP; Nupro) was studied. Methods: Twenty disks (2 mm x 10 mm) for each restorative material were prepared in a mold and stored for 24h at 37C in 100% relative humidity. Baseline Mylar surfaces were tested. Five specimens of material were polished with each agent by a single operator for 5- sec and 10- sec intervals. Measurements of surface roughness (Ra, µm) were made using a surface profilometer with 3 tracings per specimen.

Results: Means of Ra at baseline for PJ, CP, MP, and FP were:

	Prophy Jet		Coarse		Medium		Fine
FPC- Baseline	0.20(0.15)		0.20(0.24)		0.17(0.11)		0.21(0.17)
5 sec	1.35(0.38)		0.29(0.28)		0.25(0.19)		0.23(0.17)
10 sec	2.76(0.47)		0.31(0.29)		0.46(0.36)		0.35(0.31)
TPH- Baseline	0.14(0.13)		0.34(0.30)		0.36(0.26)		0.24(0.16)
5 sec	1.01(0.40)		0.59(0.44)		0.87(0.44)		0.72(0.63)
10 sec	1.23(0.72)		0.75(0.50)		0.81(0.50)		0.65(0.53)
Point-4-Baseline	0.15(0.14)		0.23(0.18)		0.20(0.20)		0.29(0.28)
5 sec	1.04(.076)		1.06(0.45)		0.47(0.34)		0.34(0.26)
10 sec	1.15(0.52)		0.84(0.68)		0.75(0.40)		0.74(0.53)

Tukey-Kramer intervals (p=0.05) for comparisons among 3 materials and 4 agents were 0.12 and 0.15 µm. Polished surfaces were rougher than Mylar surfaces. Conclusions: Surface roughness caused by the Prophy Jet was greater than that caused by pumice. Prophy Jet caused the hybrid ionomer to be rougher than the composites, whereas pumice caused the composites to be rougher than the hybrid ionomer. Products provided by manufacturers.

Back to the Dental Materials: VIII - Others-Non-metallic Program
Back to the IADR/AADR/CADR 80th General Session (March 6-9, 2002)

Top Level Search