The Effect of Finishing and Polishing Systems on Surface Roughness and Microbial Adhesion of Bulk Fill Composites: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Q3 Dentistry Frontiers in Dentistry Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.18502/fid.v20i26.13344
Hoda Saleh Ismail, Ashraf Ibrahim Ali
{"title":"The Effect of Finishing and Polishing Systems on Surface Roughness and Microbial Adhesion of Bulk Fill Composites: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Hoda Saleh Ismail,&nbsp;Ashraf Ibrahim Ali","doi":"10.18502/fid.v20i26.13344","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objectives:</b> This paper presents a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of different finishing and polishing (F/P) systems on surface roughness (SR) and microbial adhesion to bulk fill (BF) composites. <b>Materials and Methods:</b> An electronic search of 3 databases (the National Library of Medicine [MEDLINE/PubMed], Scopus, and ScienceDirect) was conducted. Only in vitro studies that evaluated SR and microbial adhesion to BF composites were included. The included studies were individually evaluated for the risk of bias following predetermined criteria. A meta-analysis of the reviewed studies was conducted to compare the SR values of both Filtek Bulk Fill and Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill with and without F/P using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. <b>Results:</b> A total of 12 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis showed no significant difference between Filtek Bulk Fill and Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill without F/P or after F/P using multi-step systems. Different F/P systems affected the SR values, on the other hand, did not affect microbial adhesion values. <b>Conclusion:</b> Both Filtek Bulk Fill and Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill had comparable roughness results. Multi-step systems may be preferable for F/P of BF composites.</p>","PeriodicalId":12445,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Dentistry","volume":"20 ","pages":"26"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/19/da/FID-20-26.PMC10493115.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18502/fid.v20i26.13344","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This paper presents a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of different finishing and polishing (F/P) systems on surface roughness (SR) and microbial adhesion to bulk fill (BF) composites. Materials and Methods: An electronic search of 3 databases (the National Library of Medicine [MEDLINE/PubMed], Scopus, and ScienceDirect) was conducted. Only in vitro studies that evaluated SR and microbial adhesion to BF composites were included. The included studies were individually evaluated for the risk of bias following predetermined criteria. A meta-analysis of the reviewed studies was conducted to compare the SR values of both Filtek Bulk Fill and Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill with and without F/P using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. Results: A total of 12 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis showed no significant difference between Filtek Bulk Fill and Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill without F/P or after F/P using multi-step systems. Different F/P systems affected the SR values, on the other hand, did not affect microbial adhesion values. Conclusion: Both Filtek Bulk Fill and Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill had comparable roughness results. Multi-step systems may be preferable for F/P of BF composites.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
精加工和抛光系统对大块填料复合材料表面粗糙度和微生物粘附力的影响:系统综述和荟萃分析。
目的:本文对不同的精加工和抛光(F/P)系统对表面粗糙度(SR)和微生物粘附量(BF)复合材料的影响进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析。材料与方法:对3个数据库(美国国家医学图书馆[MEDLINE/PubMed]、Scopus和ScienceDirect)进行电子检索。仅包括评估SR和微生物与BF复合材料粘附的体外研究。纳入的研究按照预先确定的标准单独评估偏倚风险。使用综合荟萃分析软件对所回顾的研究进行了荟萃分析,以比较Filtek散装填料和Tetric EvoCeram散装填料在含F/P和不含F/P时的SR值。结果:共有12项研究符合纳入标准。荟萃分析显示,Filtek散装填料和Tetric EvoCeram散装填料在没有F/P或F/P后使用多步系统之间没有显著差异。另一方面,不同的F/P体系对SR值有影响,而对微生物粘附值没有影响。结论:Filtek散装填充和Tetric EvoCeram散装填充具有相似的粗糙度结果。对于BF复合材料的F/P,多级系统是较好的选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Frontiers in Dentistry
Frontiers in Dentistry Dentistry-General Dentistry
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Anxiolytic Effect of Jasmine Aromatherapy in Pediatric Dental Procedures: A Single-Blinded Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial. Smoking Cessation Counseling: Practices, Determinants, and Barriers in a Sample of Iranian Primary Care Dentists. Fracture Resistance, Surface Roughness, and Microtensile Bond Strength of Monolithic Zirconia to Resin Cements after Plasma Treatment. The Effect of Dimethyl Sulfoxide on the Microtensile Bond Strength of Universal Adhesives to Dentin. In Vitro Effects of Sof-Lex, Eve, and Astropol Polishing Systems on Composite Resin Surface Roughness after Aging.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1