Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026
Effect of different scaling instruments on the roughness of esthetic resin composite restorations: an in vitro study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Alhumaidan Abdulkareem, Alshehri Turki, Alameer Shahad T, Albishri Dhai, Al Madani Abdullah, Al Qranei Mohammed, Albaqawi Hoda, Balhaddad Abdulrahman A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the effect of different scaling methods on the roughness of various resin composites used in anterior teeth.
METHODS: Seven commercially available resin composite materials were tested: 3M™ Filtek™ Z350 XT, Beautifil II, and Beautifil II LS, G-ænial Anterior, IPS Empress Direct, Tokuyama PALFIQUE LX5, Vittra APS FKG. Disc-shaped specimens (6 mm in diameter and 2 mm in thickness) were prepared using a 3D-printed mold. A total of 30 specimens per brand were fabricated and randomly divided into three sub-groups according to the scaling technique: stainless-steel hand scaler (metal scaling), plastic hand scaler (plastic scaling), and piezoelectric ultra-sonic scaler tip (ultra-sonic scaling). Baseline surface roughness values were measured using a non-contact optical profilometer. Each specimen was then subjected to 40 scaling strokes, and post-scaling surface roughness was remeasured using the same method. The change in average surface roughness was calculated. Two and One-way ANOVA with Tukey's post hoc test analyzed the data (α= 0.05).
RESULTS: Both scaler method and resin composite type were determinant factors (p < 0.001) in modulating the roughness of resin composite restorations. Metal scaling consistently produced the greatest surface roughness change (ΔRa, µm) across all composites, with G-ænial Anterior recording the highest ΔRa value (2.23 ± 0.91 µm) and IPS Empress Direct the lowest (1.23 ± 0.82 µm). Plastic scaling resulted in the least ΔRa across all materials (range: 0.00-0.10 µm), with IPS Empress Direct recording the highest change (0.10 ± 0.08 µm) and G-ænial Anterior and Tokuyama PALFIQUE LX5 revealing almost no change. Ultra-sonic scaling produced intermediate roughness change, with G-ænial Anterior again recording the highest value (1.61 ± 0.98 µm). Metal scaling produced significantly higher ΔRa than both plastic and ultra-sonic methods in most resin composites (p < 0.05), while plastic and ultra-sonic groups were largely comparable.
CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of the study, plastic scalers caused the least surface alteration and may be considered the most conservative option for maintaining the surface smoothness of resin composites.
METHODS: Seven commercially available resin composite materials were tested: 3M™ Filtek™ Z350 XT, Beautifil II, and Beautifil II LS, G-ænial Anterior, IPS Empress Direct, Tokuyama PALFIQUE LX5, Vittra APS FKG. Disc-shaped specimens (6 mm in diameter and 2 mm in thickness) were prepared using a 3D-printed mold. A total of 30 specimens per brand were fabricated and randomly divided into three sub-groups according to the scaling technique: stainless-steel hand scaler (metal scaling), plastic hand scaler (plastic scaling), and piezoelectric ultra-sonic scaler tip (ultra-sonic scaling). Baseline surface roughness values were measured using a non-contact optical profilometer. Each specimen was then subjected to 40 scaling strokes, and post-scaling surface roughness was remeasured using the same method. The change in average surface roughness was calculated. Two and One-way ANOVA with Tukey's post hoc test analyzed the data (α= 0.05).
RESULTS: Both scaler method and resin composite type were determinant factors (p < 0.001) in modulating the roughness of resin composite restorations. Metal scaling consistently produced the greatest surface roughness change (ΔRa, µm) across all composites, with G-ænial Anterior recording the highest ΔRa value (2.23 ± 0.91 µm) and IPS Empress Direct the lowest (1.23 ± 0.82 µm). Plastic scaling resulted in the least ΔRa across all materials (range: 0.00-0.10 µm), with IPS Empress Direct recording the highest change (0.10 ± 0.08 µm) and G-ænial Anterior and Tokuyama PALFIQUE LX5 revealing almost no change. Ultra-sonic scaling produced intermediate roughness change, with G-ænial Anterior again recording the highest value (1.61 ± 0.98 µm). Metal scaling produced significantly higher ΔRa than both plastic and ultra-sonic methods in most resin composites (p < 0.05), while plastic and ultra-sonic groups were largely comparable.
CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of the study, plastic scalers caused the least surface alteration and may be considered the most conservative option for maintaining the surface smoothness of resin composites.