Surface roughness and morphology of three nanocomposites after two different polishing treatments by a multitechnique approach

Abstract Objectives The purpose of this study was to assess the surface roughness and morphology of three nanocomposites polished with two different polishing systems. Methods Specimens made of hybrid composite (Tetric Ceram [TC] as control) and nanocomposites: nanofilled (Filtek Supreme [FS]), nano...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Dental materials 2010-05, Vol.26 (5), p.416-425
Main Authors: Janus, J, Fauxpoint, G, Arntz, Y, Pelletier, H, Etienne, O
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Advanced Basic Science
AFM
Analysis of Variance
Biochemistry, Molecular Biology
Cellular Biology
Composite Resins - chemistry
Dental Polishing - instrumentation
Dental Polishing - methods
Dentistry
Life Sciences
Linear Models
Materials Testing
Microscopy, Atomic Force
Microscopy, Electron, Scanning
Nanocomposite
Nanocomposites - chemistry
Nanoparticles
Polishing
Profilometry
Roughness
SEM
Surface
Surface Properties
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Abstract Objectives The purpose of this study was to assess the surface roughness and morphology of three nanocomposites polished with two different polishing systems. Methods Specimens made of hybrid composite (Tetric Ceram [TC] as control) and nanocomposites: nanofilled (Filtek Supreme [FS]), nanofilled hybrid (Grandio [Gr]), complex nanofilled hybrid (Synergy D6 [Syn]) were polished with CompoSystem [CS] or Sof-Lex [SL] polishing discs. The average surface roughness (Ra) before and after polishing was measured using optical profilometry. Both AFM and SEM techniques were additionally used to analyze the surface morphology after polishing with the aim of relating the surface morphology and the surface roughness. Statistical analysis was done by ANOVA using a general linear model ( α = 0.05) with an adjustment for multiple comparisons. Results Within the same polishing system, FS exhibited the smoothest surface, followed by Syn, TC and Gr ( p < 0.0001). Sof-Lex polishing discs produced the smoothest surface compared to CompoSystem ( p < 0.0001). AFM and SEM observations confirmed that the surface roughness was related to the surface morphology and to the average filler size. Significance Positive correlation between the average filler size and the surface roughness suggest that using nanoparticles in the formulation does not necessary improve the surface texture. The nanofilled composite FS, which contains only nanofillers, showed the best results when associated to Sof-Lex polishing discs.
ISSN:0109-5641
1879-0097
DOI:10.1016/j.dental.2009.09.014