Purpose: This study was undertaken to compare the effects of three prophylaxis pastes (Nupro with coarse, medium, or fine pumice) with a new paste (Clinpro with perlite) on the surface roughness of a resin composite (Dyract AP), a hybrid ionomer (Fuji II LC), and a compomer (TPH Spectrum).
Materials and methods: Twenty disks (2 mm thick x 10 mm in diameter) of each material were prepared in split molds and stored for 24 hours at 37 degrees C in a 100% relative humidity humidistat. Baseline Mylar surface roughness values were determined. A single operator polished each specimen for 10 seconds with each paste. Five tracings of each specimen of surface roughness (Ra, microm) were made using a surface profilometer. Means and standard deviations were calculated, and analyzed by two-way analysis of variance (three restorative materials and four prophylaxis pastes as factors) and compared using Tukey-Kramer intervals calculated at the 0.05 level of significance.
Results: Analysis of variance showed significant differences among restorative materials (after polishing) and prophylaxis polishing agents. Tukey-Kramer intervals for comparisons were 0.04 and 0.05 microm, respectively. All polishing agents produced significant increased roughness compared with baseline, yielding the following results (X + SD, microm) for the three restorative materials (Fuji II LC, TPH Spectrum, Dyract AP): perlite, 0.16 +/- 0.07, 0.28 +/- 0.26, 0.79 +/- 0.64; course pumice, 0.36 +/- 0.17, 0.48 +/- 0.25, 0.88 +/- 0.46; medium pumice, 0.26 +/- 0.10, 0.35 +/- 0.30, 0.46 +/- 0.21; and fine pumice, 0.16 +/- 0.06, 0.34 +/- 0.30, 0.42 +/- 0.24). Fine pumice and perlite produced the least roughness on the hybrid ionomer, medium and fine pumice on the resin composite, and perlite on the compomer.
Clinical significance: Since prophylaxis pastes have the potential to increase the surface roughness of resin composite, hybrid ionomer, and compomer restorative materials, routine polishing during prophylaxis should be avoided.