.png)
Restorative
Purpose: To compare the effect of different combination of prophylaxis polishing pastes and cups/brushes on the surface microhardness of three restorative materials (3M Filtek Universal Restorative, Tetric EvoFlow, and GC Fuji II LC).
Methods: Disk-shaped specimens were prepared from each restorative material, thermocycled, and randomly allocated into different groups of 12 each according to the prophylaxis polishing pastes and cups/brushes. Specimens were measured at baseline for microhardness using microhardness-testing machine. Then, application of prophylaxis polishing pastes and cups/brushes were performed according to the instructions of the manufacturers. The second time measurements for microhardness were completed.
Results: The maximum change in the mean microhardness were recorded for GC Fuji II LC, Ribbed cup, and Nupro paste followed by GC Fuji II LC, Latex-free cup, and Nupro paste; GC Fuji II LC, Nylon brush and Nupro paste; and GC Fuji II LC, Ribbed cup, and Spectra paste. The three, two-way interaction between Material* Brush, Material* paste, and Brush* Paste; indicated statistically significant difference in mean change of microhardness (p< 0.0001, p< 0.0001, and p< 0.0001). The three way interaction between Material* Brush* Paste showed statistically significant difference in the mean change of microhardness (p< 0.0001). A statistically significant difference for Nupro paste, followed by Spectra and Quartz pastes was recorded.
Conclusion: polishing with combination of prophylaxis pastes and cups/brushes resulted in a significant increase of the microhardness of the three restorative materials. The change in microhardness from pre-treatment to post-treatment was significant across the three materials, the three brushes, and the three pastes.