Main Article Content
Objective: To establish the correlation among the surface roughness, contact angle and biofilm formation of composite resins after polishing with polishing devices with different grits.
Materials and methods: Three different composite resins, including microhybrids (Filtek Z250), nanohybrids (Filtek Z250XT) and nanocomposites (Filtek Z350 XT), were used in this study. Fifty discs of each composite resin were prepared and divided into the following 5 groups for polishing: non-polishing (control), Coarse Sof-Lex disc, Medium Sof-Lex disc, Fine Sof-Lex disc, and Superfine Sof-Lex disc. The surface roughness was determined using a contact profilometer. The water contact angle was determined using the sessile drop method. Finally, the biofilm formation was evaluated using a crystal violet assay for S. mutans. Data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Dunnett T3 multiple comparison. Additionally, the linear regression models were analyzed to determine the correlation among the surface roughness, water contact angle and biofilm formation.
Results: The roughest surfaces with low surface angles were the surfaces polished with coarse polishing discs, whereas the smoothest surfaces with high surface angles were the surfaces polished with superfine polishing discs for all composites. A large amount of biofilm was found in the groups polished with a coarse grit polishing disc. Correlations between surface roughness and contact angle (r = 0.778); surface roughness and biofilm formation (r = 0.648); and contact angle and biofilm formation (r = 0.563) were found.
Conclusion: There was a direct correlation among the surface roughness, water contact angle and biofilm formation of composite resins.
Bayne SC, Heymann HO, Swift Jr EJ. Update on dental composite restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 1994; 125: 687–701.
Ferracane JL. Resin composite—State of the art. Dent Mater 2011; 27: 29-38.
St Germain H, Swartz ML, Phillips RW, Moore BK, Roberts TA. Properties of microfilled composite resins as influenced by filler content. J Dent Res 1985; 64: 155–160.
Johnson WW, Dhuru VB, Brantley WA. Composite microfiller content and its effect on fracture toughness and diametral tensile strength. Dent Mater 1993; 9: 95-8.
Kim KH, Ong JL, Okuno O. The effect of filler loading and morphology on the mechanical properties of contemporary composites. J Prosthet Dent 2002; 87: 642-9.
Jefferies SR. The art and science of abrasive finishing and polishing in restorative dentistry. Dent Clin North Am 1998; 42: 613–627.
Senawongse P, Pongprueksa P. Surface roughness of nanofill and nanohybrid resin composites after polishing and brushing. J Esthet Restor Dent 2007; 19: 265–73.
Cavalcante LM, Masouras K, Watts DC, Pimenta LA, Silikas N. Effect of nanofillers’ size on surface properties after toothbrush abrasion. Am J Dent 2009; 22: 60–4.
Kantorski KZ, Scotti R, Valandro LF, Bottino MA, Koga-Ito CY, Jorge AO. Surface roughness and bacterial adherence to resin composites and ceramics. Oral Health Prev Dent 2009; 7: 29–32.
Kantorski KZ, Scotti R, Valandro LF, Bottino MA, Koga-Ito CY, Jorge AO. Adherence of Streptococcus mutans to uncoated and saliva-coated glass-ceramics and composites. Gen Dent 2008; 56: 740-7.
Ikeda M, Matin K, Nikaido T, Foxton RM, Tagami J. Effect of surface characteristics on adherence of S. mutans biofilms to indirect resin composites. Dent Mater J 2007; 26: 915-23.
Quirynen M, Bollen CM. The influence of surface roughness and surface free energy on supra-and subgingival plaque formation in man. J Clin Periodontol 1995; 22: 1–14.
Quirynen M, Marechal M, Busscher HJ, Weerkamp AH, Darius PL, van Steenberghe D. The influence of surface free energy and surface roughness on early plaque formation. An in vivo study in man. J Clin Periodontol 1990; 17: 138–44.
Beyth N, Bahir R, Matalon S, Domb AJ, Weiss EI. Streptococcus mutans biofilm changes surface-topography of resin composites. Dent Mater 2008; 24: 732–6.
Ono M, Nikaido T, Ikeda M, Imai S, Hanada N, Tagami J, et al. Surface properties of resin composite materials relative to biofilm formation. Dent Mater J 2007; 26: 613–22.
Gyo M, Nikaido T, Okada K, Yamauchi J, Tagami J, Matin K. Surface response of fluorine polymer-incorporated resin composites to cariogenic biofilm adherence. Appl Environ Microbiol 2008; 74: 1428–35.
Hannig M, Kriener L, Hoth-Hannig W, Becker-Willinger C, Schmidt H. Influence of nanocomposite surface coating on biofilm formation in situ. J Nanosci Nanotechnol 2007; 7: 4642–8.
Wenzel RN. Resistance of solid surfaces to wetting by water. Ind Eng Chem 1936; 28: 988.
Flausino JS, Soares PBF, Carvalho VF, Magalhães D, da Silva WM, Costa HL, et al. Biofilm formation on different materials for tooth restoration: analysis of surface characteristics. J Mater Sci 2014; 49(19): 6820-9.
Sturz CRC, Faber F-J, Scheer M, Rothamel D, Neugebauer J. Effects of various chair-side surface treatment methods on dental restorative materials with respect to contact angles and surface roughness. Dent Mater J 2015; 34(6): 796-813.
Busscher HJ, Van Pelt AWJ, de Boer P, de Jong HP, Arends J. The effect of surface roughening of polymers on measured contact angles of liquids. Colloids Surf 1984; 9: 319–331.
Bollen CML, Papaioannou W, Van Eldere J, Schepers E, Quirynen M, van Steenberghe D. The influence of abutment surface roughness on plaque accumulation and peri-implant mucositis. Clin Oral Imp Res 1996; 7: 201-211.
Quirynen M, Bollen CML, Papaioannou W, Van Eldere J, van Steenberghe D. The influence of titanium abutments surface roughness on plaque accumulation and gingivitis. Short-term observations. Int J Oral & Maxillofac Implants 1996; 11: 169-178.
Lu H, Roeder LB, Lei L, Powers JM. Effect of surface roughness on stain resistance of dental resin composites. J Esthet Restor Dent 2005; 17: 102–9.
Jung M, Sehr K, Klimek J. Surface texture of four nanofilled and one hybrid composite after finishing. Oper Dent 2007; 32: 45–52.
Lutz F, Phillips RW. A classification and evaluation of composite resin systems. J Prosthet Dent 1983; 50: 480–8.
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(4): 247-61.
Morgan M. Finishing and polishing of direct posterior resin restorations. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent 2004; 16: 211-7.
Ryba TM, Dunn WJ, Murchison DF. Surface roughness of various packable composites. Oper Dent 2002; 27: 243-7.
Chung KH. Effects of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface texture of resin composites. Dent Mater 1994; 10: 325-30.
Marigo L, Rizzi M, La Torre G, Rumi G. 3-D surface profile analysis: different finishing methods for resin composites. Oper Dent 2001; 26: 562-8.
Tjan AH, Chan CA. The polishability of posterior composites. J Prosthet Dent 1989; 61: 138-46.
Rüttermann S, Beikler T, Janda R. Contact angle and surface free energy of experimental resin-based dental restorative materials after chewing simulation. Dent Mater 2014; 30: 702-707.
Iazzetti G, Burgess JO, Gardiner D, Ripps A. Color stability of fluoride containing restorative materials. Oper Dent 2000; 25: 520-5.