Surface roughness of restoration margin preparations: A comparative analysis of finishing techniques

Isabelle Clarke, Adriana Aquilia, Luiz Bertassoni, Massimiliano Guazzato, Iven Klineberg

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This study compared the margin profile and surface roughness created by the tips of four different finishing instruments: fine diamond, dura white stone, tungsten carbide, and ultrasonic diamond-coated tips (UDTs). The aim was to determine which of these instruments produced the smoothest finish and created the most evenly contoured margin characteristics. It was hypothesized that UDTs would produce a rougher dentin surface than a fine diamond bur, that a tungsten carbide bur would provide a smoother finish than a fine diamond, and that the dura white stone would produce an intermediate finish. Forty extracted premolars were divided into two groups. For the first group, a 1.5 x 3.0-mm dentin slot was prepared in 30 teeth using a control 50-μm diamond bur, followed by one of the four finishing instruments. The surface roughness (Ra) was then measured using a surface profilometer and a one-way analysis of variance followed by a post hoc Bonferroni test to assess whether any statistical difference existed among the Ra values. For the second group, shoulder margins were prepared in 10 teeth. They were then refined with one of the four finishing instruments and examined with scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The fine diamond bur created a significantly smoother surface than the control diamond (P < .001), UDTs (P < .007), and tungsten carbide bur (P < .010). The fine diamond was not found to be significantly smoother than the dura white stone. SEM images of the fine diamond showed divoting on the margin floor. The dura stone showed a well-defined, undamaged margin. The tungsten carbide bur created frequent chipping in enamel margins. The UDT specimens showed an inconsistent finish and discrete patches of open dentinal tubules. The fine diamond created the lowest Ra values; however, the dura stone offered efficient finishing and less damage to the margin profile.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)211-218
Number of pages8
JournalInternational Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry
Volume35
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - 2015
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Diamond
Ultrasonics
Dentin
Electron Scanning Microscopy
Tooth
Bicuspid
Dental Enamel
Analysis of Variance

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Surface roughness of restoration margin preparations : A comparative analysis of finishing techniques. / Clarke, Isabelle; Aquilia, Adriana; Bertassoni, Luiz; Guazzato, Massimiliano; Klineberg, Iven.

In: International Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry, Vol. 35, No. 2, 2015, p. 211-218.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Clarke, Isabelle ; Aquilia, Adriana ; Bertassoni, Luiz ; Guazzato, Massimiliano ; Klineberg, Iven. / Surface roughness of restoration margin preparations : A comparative analysis of finishing techniques. In: International Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry. 2015 ; Vol. 35, No. 2. pp. 211-218.
@article{8f96952d56b44afea1f7338d6d568976,
title = "Surface roughness of restoration margin preparations: A comparative analysis of finishing techniques",
abstract = "This study compared the margin profile and surface roughness created by the tips of four different finishing instruments: fine diamond, dura white stone, tungsten carbide, and ultrasonic diamond-coated tips (UDTs). The aim was to determine which of these instruments produced the smoothest finish and created the most evenly contoured margin characteristics. It was hypothesized that UDTs would produce a rougher dentin surface than a fine diamond bur, that a tungsten carbide bur would provide a smoother finish than a fine diamond, and that the dura white stone would produce an intermediate finish. Forty extracted premolars were divided into two groups. For the first group, a 1.5 x 3.0-mm dentin slot was prepared in 30 teeth using a control 50-μm diamond bur, followed by one of the four finishing instruments. The surface roughness (Ra) was then measured using a surface profilometer and a one-way analysis of variance followed by a post hoc Bonferroni test to assess whether any statistical difference existed among the Ra values. For the second group, shoulder margins were prepared in 10 teeth. They were then refined with one of the four finishing instruments and examined with scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The fine diamond bur created a significantly smoother surface than the control diamond (P < .001), UDTs (P < .007), and tungsten carbide bur (P < .010). The fine diamond was not found to be significantly smoother than the dura white stone. SEM images of the fine diamond showed divoting on the margin floor. The dura stone showed a well-defined, undamaged margin. The tungsten carbide bur created frequent chipping in enamel margins. The UDT specimens showed an inconsistent finish and discrete patches of open dentinal tubules. The fine diamond created the lowest Ra values; however, the dura stone offered efficient finishing and less damage to the margin profile.",
author = "Isabelle Clarke and Adriana Aquilia and Luiz Bertassoni and Massimiliano Guazzato and Iven Klineberg",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.11607/prd.1829",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "35",
pages = "211--218",
journal = "International Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry",
issn = "0198-7569",
publisher = "Quintessence Publishing Company",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Surface roughness of restoration margin preparations

T2 - A comparative analysis of finishing techniques

AU - Clarke, Isabelle

AU - Aquilia, Adriana

AU - Bertassoni, Luiz

AU - Guazzato, Massimiliano

AU - Klineberg, Iven

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - This study compared the margin profile and surface roughness created by the tips of four different finishing instruments: fine diamond, dura white stone, tungsten carbide, and ultrasonic diamond-coated tips (UDTs). The aim was to determine which of these instruments produced the smoothest finish and created the most evenly contoured margin characteristics. It was hypothesized that UDTs would produce a rougher dentin surface than a fine diamond bur, that a tungsten carbide bur would provide a smoother finish than a fine diamond, and that the dura white stone would produce an intermediate finish. Forty extracted premolars were divided into two groups. For the first group, a 1.5 x 3.0-mm dentin slot was prepared in 30 teeth using a control 50-μm diamond bur, followed by one of the four finishing instruments. The surface roughness (Ra) was then measured using a surface profilometer and a one-way analysis of variance followed by a post hoc Bonferroni test to assess whether any statistical difference existed among the Ra values. For the second group, shoulder margins were prepared in 10 teeth. They were then refined with one of the four finishing instruments and examined with scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The fine diamond bur created a significantly smoother surface than the control diamond (P < .001), UDTs (P < .007), and tungsten carbide bur (P < .010). The fine diamond was not found to be significantly smoother than the dura white stone. SEM images of the fine diamond showed divoting on the margin floor. The dura stone showed a well-defined, undamaged margin. The tungsten carbide bur created frequent chipping in enamel margins. The UDT specimens showed an inconsistent finish and discrete patches of open dentinal tubules. The fine diamond created the lowest Ra values; however, the dura stone offered efficient finishing and less damage to the margin profile.

AB - This study compared the margin profile and surface roughness created by the tips of four different finishing instruments: fine diamond, dura white stone, tungsten carbide, and ultrasonic diamond-coated tips (UDTs). The aim was to determine which of these instruments produced the smoothest finish and created the most evenly contoured margin characteristics. It was hypothesized that UDTs would produce a rougher dentin surface than a fine diamond bur, that a tungsten carbide bur would provide a smoother finish than a fine diamond, and that the dura white stone would produce an intermediate finish. Forty extracted premolars were divided into two groups. For the first group, a 1.5 x 3.0-mm dentin slot was prepared in 30 teeth using a control 50-μm diamond bur, followed by one of the four finishing instruments. The surface roughness (Ra) was then measured using a surface profilometer and a one-way analysis of variance followed by a post hoc Bonferroni test to assess whether any statistical difference existed among the Ra values. For the second group, shoulder margins were prepared in 10 teeth. They were then refined with one of the four finishing instruments and examined with scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The fine diamond bur created a significantly smoother surface than the control diamond (P < .001), UDTs (P < .007), and tungsten carbide bur (P < .010). The fine diamond was not found to be significantly smoother than the dura white stone. SEM images of the fine diamond showed divoting on the margin floor. The dura stone showed a well-defined, undamaged margin. The tungsten carbide bur created frequent chipping in enamel margins. The UDT specimens showed an inconsistent finish and discrete patches of open dentinal tubules. The fine diamond created the lowest Ra values; however, the dura stone offered efficient finishing and less damage to the margin profile.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85009239063&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85009239063&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.11607/prd.1829

DO - 10.11607/prd.1829

M3 - Article

C2 - 25738341

AN - SCOPUS:85009239063

VL - 35

SP - 211

EP - 218

JO - International Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry

JF - International Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry

SN - 0198-7569

IS - 2

ER -