Roughness Impact of Piezoelectric Dental Scaler on Two Distinct Flowable Composite Filling Materials

This study seeks to expand the body of knowledge by investigating the roughness effect induced by piezoelectric ultrasonic dental scalers on restorative materials, specifically two different flowable composite filling materials. Research consistently shows that both sonic and ultrasonic scaling can increase the surface roughness of tooth colored research materials with ultrasonic scaling having a more detrimental effect. When conducting such research in terms of ultrasonic scale replication, the methodological factors that might affect the findings can be mentioned as follows, adjusted lateral force, T angulation, power settings, and consistency of the application site to be examined.

The capacity to precisely disclose the examined surface after the application is also extremely beneficial to the findings. Therefore, when conducting such studies, it is necessary to establish a setup to standardize individualized application and evaluation parameters. Although the clinical significance of the observed roughness increase requires further investigation, the potential for increased blood retention should inform the clinical practices emphasizing the need for careful scaling techniques around composite restorations.

To begin, obtain a piece of transparent glass, a rubber gasket, and a piece of transparent tape to prepare a composite sample with a thickness of two millimeters and a diameter of seven millimeters. Place the gasket on the transparent tape. Apply the composite sample to the gasket, condense the composite sample, and close the transparent glass over the gasket and the composite sample.

Next, polymerize the composite material using a light curing system for 20 seconds from the top and 20 seconds from the bottom. Use a polishing system for the same duration and method to ensure uniform surface roughness across all composite samples. To begin, find a plastic L-connection hanger element used to fix kitchen terraces to the wall.

Fill the bottom and back of the plastic part with cold curing pink acrylic, and allow it to polymerize and harden on a flat surface. Using a diamond cutting disc excise a section of the holder and use a monster lab burr to create a groove to accommodate the fixation of any specimen. Use silicone impression material to make a copy of the plastic and acrylic mixture holder prototype.

Then create a negative version of the prototype. Use cold curing acrylic to fill in the negative version and create sufficient holders. Stabilize the composite specimens using cold curing acrylic, and mark the region where the instrument will be applied.

To collect the profilometry measurements, go to the measure condition tab in the profilometer menu. Click on the settings tab and make the numerical settings as Lambda C to 0.8, Lambda S to 2.5 and opt length to two. These settings enable the readout of surface roughness over two millimeters with a cutoff value of 0.8 millimeters at a speed of 0.25 millimeters per second.

Next, mark two millimeters below the top center of the composite specimen using a caliper. Adjust the sensitive tip of the profilometer to align with the marked point and start the profilometric measurement. Obtain a parallelometer and fix the acrylic block on the table of the parallelometer.

Obtain a rubber pipe clamp with a triphone. Use the clamp to attach the handpiece of the device to the holder arm of the parallelometer. Increase the number of clamp parts and the amount of rubber to match the thickness of the handpiece.

Thicken the screw part of the clamp with cold curing acrylic to allow insertion into the holding arm of the parallelometer. At maximum power under water cooling and with equal force on a designated region apply the ultrasonic scaler to each composite material for 60 seconds at an angle of zero degrees. Finally, click on the settings tab and make the relevant numerical settings for profilometric measurements.

The intergroup profilometric comparison showed a significant increase in surface roughness after scaler application in both groups. The intergroup comparison revealed no significant difference in roughness changes between the two groups after scalar application.