IADR Abstract Archives
Can Composite Polishing Systems Damage Enamel?
Objectives: This study quantified and compared enamel loss surrounding Class V composite restorations from two finishing and polishing sequences.
Methods: Fifteen extracted molars (IRB #18-05871-NHSR) were mounted in a typodont. Class V preparations (5x2x1.5mm) were cut on the buccal and lingual surfaces. The Class V preparations were etched (Scotchbond Universal Etchant), bonded (Scotchbond Universal Adhesive), and filled with a composite (EsthetX HD). The restorations on each molar were randomly assigned to one of two finishing and polishing sequences: (1) carbide finishing bur + Green Super-Snap Aluminum Oxide Polishing Disc + White Super-Snap Aluminum Oxide Polishing Disc or (2).diamond finishing bur + Enhance Aluminum Oxide Impregnated Finishing Cup + PoGo Diamond Impregnated Polishing Cup. Tooth surfaces were scanned (COMET xS Optical Scanner) after preparation (‘baseline’), after finishing (‘finish’), after the initial polishing step (Green Disc or Enhance Cup), and after the final polishing step (White Disc or PoGo Cup). Tooth surfaces after each of the finishing and polishing steps were aligned to the baseline scan using Cumulus software. Surface changes were calculated and statistically analyzed (paired t-test; significance 0.05).
Results: Mean depth of enamel loss after each finishing and polishing step is indicated in the table. Most loss came from finishing with either carbide or diamond bur. Each polishing step increased the mean depth by only a few microns, although statistically not significant. There was no statistically significant difference between Sequence 1 and 2.
Conclusions: The majority of enamel damage from finishing and polishing composite restorations resulted from finishing burs. There was no significant difference in enamel loss between the carbide and diamond finishing burs or between the Super-Snap Aluminum Oxide Polishing Discs, Enhance Finishing Cups, and PoGo Polishing Cups. Both composite polishing systems removed little enamel, and thus were safe for the surrounding enamel.
Methods: Fifteen extracted molars (IRB #18-05871-NHSR) were mounted in a typodont. Class V preparations (5x2x1.5mm) were cut on the buccal and lingual surfaces. The Class V preparations were etched (Scotchbond Universal Etchant), bonded (Scotchbond Universal Adhesive), and filled with a composite (EsthetX HD). The restorations on each molar were randomly assigned to one of two finishing and polishing sequences: (1) carbide finishing bur + Green Super-Snap Aluminum Oxide Polishing Disc + White Super-Snap Aluminum Oxide Polishing Disc or (2).diamond finishing bur + Enhance Aluminum Oxide Impregnated Finishing Cup + PoGo Diamond Impregnated Polishing Cup. Tooth surfaces were scanned (COMET xS Optical Scanner) after preparation (‘baseline’), after finishing (‘finish’), after the initial polishing step (Green Disc or Enhance Cup), and after the final polishing step (White Disc or PoGo Cup). Tooth surfaces after each of the finishing and polishing steps were aligned to the baseline scan using Cumulus software. Surface changes were calculated and statistically analyzed (paired t-test; significance 0.05).
Results: Mean depth of enamel loss after each finishing and polishing step is indicated in the table. Most loss came from finishing with either carbide or diamond bur. Each polishing step increased the mean depth by only a few microns, although statistically not significant. There was no statistically significant difference between Sequence 1 and 2.
Conclusions: The majority of enamel damage from finishing and polishing composite restorations resulted from finishing burs. There was no significant difference in enamel loss between the carbide and diamond finishing burs or between the Super-Snap Aluminum Oxide Polishing Discs, Enhance Finishing Cups, and PoGo Polishing Cups. Both composite polishing systems removed little enamel, and thus were safe for the surrounding enamel.