Staining susceptibility and the effect of different stain removal techniques on the optical properties of injectable composite resins DOI Creative Commons
Nancy Soliman Farghal, Fadia Awadalkreem,

Shahistha Parveen Dasnadi

et al.

Frontiers in Oral Health, Journal Year: 2025, Volume and Issue: 6

Published: Feb. 28, 2025

Introduction The injectable composite resin technique using highly filled flowable for anterior restorations is relatively new. This study aims to detect the staining susceptibility and effect of polishing bleaching agents their combination on stain removal surface gloss resins compared sculptable nanofilled composite. Methods Eighty-four disc-shaped specimens were prepared from two resins: Beautifil Flow Plus X (BFP) G-ænial Universal Injectable (GUI) one composite; Filtek™ Z350XT Restorative (FUR), immersed in an instant coffee solution 12 days. each material divided into four groups ( n = 7) according stain-removal method: Group 1 (control): no treatment. 2: Polished with Super-Snap Buff Polisher Direct DiaPaste 60 s. 3: Bleached Opalescence Boost 40% hour (3 rounds/20 min each). 4: bleached polished. A Spectrophotometer recorded color parameter initially (T 0 ), after ) methods 2 change (ΔE 00 was calculated. Gloss (GU) a glossmeter. Surface morphology examined Scanning Electron Microscopy. data analyzed One Two-way ANOVA Tukey's HSD post hoc test SPSS software at 5% significance level. Results All tested materials showed clinically unacceptable immersion removing >1.8), FUR exhibiting highest (26.2 ± 2.6). In-office combined bleaching/polishing significantly reduced P < 0.05), while all equally effective BPF GUI > 0.05). remained unchanged values (52.8 11.2–49.7 9.4, 0.05) but decreased alone or (31.6 5.7–15.4 1.5, Conclusion composites exhibited lower than No stain-removing method restored acceptable threshold. effectively maintained optimal gloss, not recommended due its negative impact gloss.

Language: Английский

Staining susceptibility and the effect of different stain removal techniques on the optical properties of injectable composite resins DOI Creative Commons
Nancy Soliman Farghal, Fadia Awadalkreem,

Shahistha Parveen Dasnadi

et al.

Frontiers in Oral Health, Journal Year: 2025, Volume and Issue: 6

Published: Feb. 28, 2025

Introduction The injectable composite resin technique using highly filled flowable for anterior restorations is relatively new. This study aims to detect the staining susceptibility and effect of polishing bleaching agents their combination on stain removal surface gloss resins compared sculptable nanofilled composite. Methods Eighty-four disc-shaped specimens were prepared from two resins: Beautifil Flow Plus X (BFP) G-ænial Universal Injectable (GUI) one composite; Filtek™ Z350XT Restorative (FUR), immersed in an instant coffee solution 12 days. each material divided into four groups ( n = 7) according stain-removal method: Group 1 (control): no treatment. 2: Polished with Super-Snap Buff Polisher Direct DiaPaste 60 s. 3: Bleached Opalescence Boost 40% hour (3 rounds/20 min each). 4: bleached polished. A Spectrophotometer recorded color parameter initially (T 0 ), after ) methods 2 change (ΔE 00 was calculated. Gloss (GU) a glossmeter. Surface morphology examined Scanning Electron Microscopy. data analyzed One Two-way ANOVA Tukey's HSD post hoc test SPSS software at 5% significance level. Results All tested materials showed clinically unacceptable immersion removing >1.8), FUR exhibiting highest (26.2 ± 2.6). In-office combined bleaching/polishing significantly reduced P < 0.05), while all equally effective BPF GUI > 0.05). remained unchanged values (52.8 11.2–49.7 9.4, 0.05) but decreased alone or (31.6 5.7–15.4 1.5, Conclusion composites exhibited lower than No stain-removing method restored acceptable threshold. effectively maintained optimal gloss, not recommended due its negative impact gloss.

Language: Английский

Citations

0