IADR Abstract Archives
Visual Acceptable Gloss Threshold for Resin Composite and Polishing Systems
Objectives: Our objective was to compare dentist’s perceptions and rankings of dental composite specimens with incrementally increased levels of gloss, as produced by different finishing/polishing methods and as measured by a glossmeter, and to identify the level of gloss considered to be clinically acceptable.
Methods: Disc-shaped composite specimens (10mm Ø, 3-mm thick) of TPH Spectra ST (Dentsply Sirona) were finished/polished three ways: 1) SiC-A = progressive use of #600, #1200, #2400, and #4000 SiC papers and 1.0, 0.3 and 0.05 mm alumina paste on a metallurgical finishing wheel; 2) E/P = manually using Enhance & PoGo in a handpiece (Dentsply Sirona) and 3) SL = manually using Sof-Lex XT (3M ESPE). Specimens were produced with surface gloss from 0 to a maximum of 100 GU in increments of ~10 GU as measured with a glossmeter (Novo-Curve). GU=0 was non-glossy and GU=100 was “perfectly” glossy. Ten dentists evaluated the specimens under controlled lighting conditions, ranking the specimens in order from low to high gloss, and in 4 groups: low (dull/rough), medium (moderate gloss, but clinically unacceptable), high (glossy and clinically acceptable), and superior gloss. Spearman correlation analysis was performed (α=0.05).
Results: For each finish/polish method, there was an excellent correlation between the machine measured (actual) gloss ranks and the clinician gloss ranks (r2 ≧0.95) (Figure). There was no difference in the perception of surface gloss of TPH Spectra ST when metallurgically polished (SiC-A) or polished by E/P to the same GU. There was a slight difference in gloss perception of TPH Spectra ST when polished by the two different commercial polishing systems.
Conclusions: Ten dentists consistently perceived gloss of 40-50 as clinically acceptable. However, the composite was considered clinically acceptable at a lower gloss (40 GU) when polished by Sof-Lex than when polished by Enhance & Pogo or metallurgically (50 GU).
Methods: Disc-shaped composite specimens (10mm Ø, 3-mm thick) of TPH Spectra ST (Dentsply Sirona) were finished/polished three ways: 1) SiC-A = progressive use of #600, #1200, #2400, and #4000 SiC papers and 1.0, 0.3 and 0.05 mm alumina paste on a metallurgical finishing wheel; 2) E/P = manually using Enhance & PoGo in a handpiece (Dentsply Sirona) and 3) SL = manually using Sof-Lex XT (3M ESPE). Specimens were produced with surface gloss from 0 to a maximum of 100 GU in increments of ~10 GU as measured with a glossmeter (Novo-Curve). GU=0 was non-glossy and GU=100 was “perfectly” glossy. Ten dentists evaluated the specimens under controlled lighting conditions, ranking the specimens in order from low to high gloss, and in 4 groups: low (dull/rough), medium (moderate gloss, but clinically unacceptable), high (glossy and clinically acceptable), and superior gloss. Spearman correlation analysis was performed (α=0.05).
Results: For each finish/polish method, there was an excellent correlation between the machine measured (actual) gloss ranks and the clinician gloss ranks (r2 ≧0.95) (Figure). There was no difference in the perception of surface gloss of TPH Spectra ST when metallurgically polished (SiC-A) or polished by E/P to the same GU. There was a slight difference in gloss perception of TPH Spectra ST when polished by the two different commercial polishing systems.
Conclusions: Ten dentists consistently perceived gloss of 40-50 as clinically acceptable. However, the composite was considered clinically acceptable at a lower gloss (40 GU) when polished by Sof-Lex than when polished by Enhance & Pogo or metallurgically (50 GU).
2958932_File000000.jpg