Article in PDF
How to Cite
Citation Manager
Readers' Comments (0)
Audio Visual Article Statistics
Link
to PUBMED
Print this Article
Send to a Friend
Advertisers
Access Statistics Resources
Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."
Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011
Dr. Shankar P.R.
"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."
Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011 Anuradha
Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.
Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020
Original article / research
Full Version
Evaluation of Bulk Fill Composite Roughness Polished with Spiral Rubber Discs: An In-vitro Study
Correspondence Address :
Luís Felipe Espíndola-Castro,
Av. General. Newton Cavalcanti, 1650-Tabatinga Camaragibe,
Recife-54756-220, Pernambuco, Brazil.
E-mail: lipe_espindola@hotmail.com
Introduction: Restorations with high surface roughness directly influences restorative procedure longevity. When used correctly, polishing systems optimises the quality, aesthetics and longevity of composite resins.
Aim: To evaluate the influence of three two-step polishing systems of spiral rubber discs on surface roughness of three different bulks fill composite resins.
Materials and Methods: This in-vitro study was conducted from May 2021 to January 2022, at the Universidade Estadual de Pernambuco, School of Dentistry, Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil. Total 20 specimens of each resin {three Bulk Fill resins: Filtek One Bulk Fill (3M-ESPE), Aura Ultra Universal Restorative Bulk Fill (SDI) and Opus Bulk Fill (FGM)} were randomly divided into four groups (n=5 each). The three groups include test polishing systems {Sof-Lex Diamond Polishing System (3M/ESPE, Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA), Decamp Plus Twist Spiral EVE (Odontomega, Ribera Prato, SP, Brazil), Spiral Swivel (Jota, Ruth, Kanton St. Gallen, Switzerland)} and one control group include no polishing system. To assess surface roughness, before and after polishing, specimens were evaluated on a digital rugosimeter. Data was subjected to the Shapiro-Wilk test to assess normality, followed by Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to compare the mean between the different types of resins and types of polishers.
Results: For the composite resins studied, significant differences were observed only when polished with Sof-lex Spiral (p-value=0.013). All polishing system caused a significant improvement in the roughness of composite resins compared to the control group. The mean roughness reduction comparison test between the types of polisher was significant (p-value <0.001), there was a significantly greater reduction in the roughness of EVE Decamp Plus Twist Spiral and Swivel Spiral polish system, compared to polish system from Sof-Lex Diamond Polishing System and control group. No statistically significant differences were found between EVE Diacomp Plus Spiral and Spiral Swivel polishing system.
Conclusion: The spiral rubber polishers evaluated were effective in reducing the roughness of bulk fill composites. However, EVE Decamp Plus Spiral and Spiral Swivel polishers showed better results than Sof-Lex Spiral.
Composite resins, Dental aesthetic, Dental polishing
Bulk fill composite resins are materials able to restore teeth in single increments upto 5 mm in depth (1). This modality of composite resins have good clinical longevity, chemical and mechanical properties (2), being classified into low viscosity or high viscosity, depending on the load present in the resin matrix (3). However, regardless of the restorative material used, restorations with high surface roughness directly influence restorative procedure longevity (4). Therefore, polishing systems have been developed in order to smoothing the restoration and consequently, avoid plaque accumulation, gingival inflammation, recurrent caries, surface staining, and discomfort (5),(6).
Although polishing procedure in posterior composite restorations is difficult due to anatomical characteristics required to posterior teeth (7),(8), this step should not be neglected, as a perfectly polished surface of composite resin leads to improved mechanical properties such as microhardness and better aesthetic appearance (4),(6),(9).
Finishing and polishing procedures influence the quality, aesthetics and longevity of composite resins, whereas the finishing step is defined as contouring or reducing the restoration to obtain the ideal anatomy, the polishing step promotes the smoothing of roughness and reduction of surface scratches created by the instruments used in finishing (10). However, the finishing and polishing steps provides not only a good aesthetic result, but also marginal integrity and, consequently, good soft tissue health (11).
Recently, spiral rubber discs have been developed and used by dentists. These materials are able to polish posterior teeth restorations without harming the anatomy produced during the restorative procedure (12). However, there are few studies about the effectiveness of these polishers in bulk fill composite resins surface roughness (13),(14). Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of three two-step polishing systems of spiral rubber discs on surface roughness of three different bulk fill composite resins. The objective of study was to evaluate the surface roughness in three bulk fill resins: Filtek One Bulk Fill (3M-ESPE), Aura Ultra Universal Restorative Bulk Fill (SDI) and Opus Bulk Fill (FGM) submitted to three two-step polishing systems of spiral rubber discs: Sof-Lex Spiral (3M-ESPE), EVE Decamp plus Spiral (Odontomega) and Swivel Spiral (Jota).
The null hypotheses of this study were: (I) there is no difference in the surface roughness caused by the different polishers tested, (II) there is no difference in the surface roughness of the different composite resins tested.
This in-vitro study was conducted from May 2021 to January 2022, at multiuser materials research laboratory at the Universidade Estadual de Pernambuco, School of Dentistry, Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil.
Sample size calculation: The sample was calculated based on previous studies [13,14]. Based on a mean and standard deviation found (±0.2), a significance level of 5% and a test power of 80%, a minimum size required per group was three. Two more samples were added considering possible losses, so five samples per group were taken for this study. The sample size was calculated using the website calculoamostral.bauru.usp.br (University of São Paulo, Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil).
Bulk fill: Three composite bulk fill resins-
• Filtek One Bulk Fill, (3M/ESPE, Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA),
• Aura Ultra Universal Restorative (SDI, Bayswater, Westminster, Australia),
• Opus Bulk Fill (FGM, Joinville, SC, Brazil)
Spiral rubber discs: Three sets of spiral rubber discs selected for this study-
• Sof-Lex Diamond Polishing System (3M/ESPE, Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA),
• Decamp Plus Twist Spiral EVE (Odontomega, Ribera Prato, SP, Brazil)
• Spiral Swivel (Jota, Ruth, Kanton St. Gallen, Switzerland)
The manufacturers and the protocols of tested polishing systems are presented in (Table/Fig 1). Samples with bubbles, cracks or scratches were excluded.
Preparation of Specimens
Twenty cylindrical specimens of each resin was obtained using a stainless steel split matrix with 4 mm in diameter and 2 mm thickness. On a glass slide, the metallic matrix was placed and filled with each composite resin. Another glass slide was placed over the resin and pressed to obtain a plane, smooth and polished surface. After this, light curing was performed for 20 seconds (800 mW/cm2; VALO, Ultra dent, Salt Lake City, UT, EUA) according to Dias MF et al., (15).
After making the samples, they were evaluated under a stereomicroscope (40X magnification) and after these steps, the specimens were randomly divided into four subgroups (three tests, one for each spiral disc tested and 1 control, without treatment) (n=5). In order to facilitate the specimens reading, the resin blocks were fixed in acrylic resin. Subsequently, the specimens surface were sanded with #400 and #600 water sandpaper for 1 minute (each) in a polisher (Aropol 2VPU, Aortic, Coria, Brazil) to simulate the roughness of the composite resin caused during the finishing of the restoration. After that, all specimens were stored in distilled water at 37°C for 24 hours. Then, specimen’s surface roughness was assessed before and after polishing procedure, which was performed by a single operator, according to the manufacturer’s instructions.
Roughness Evaluation
Before performing the polishing procedures with spiral discs, all specimens were submitted to surface roughness reading (Portable Rugosimeter SJ-310-4MN, Mitutoyo, Kawasaki, Japan), in three different directions (vertical, horizontal and transversal). The surface of each sample was analysed at a length of 1.25 mm, at a speed of 0.5 mm/sec, three times, and thus obtained the mean surface roughness in Ra (μm).
Polishing Procedure
To carry out the polishing of the specimens, the spiral discs were coupled to a micromotor with 1,200 rpm for 3 minutes in contact with the sample (X-Smart Plus, Dentsply, Mailer), the polishing time was defined based on the manufacturer’s recommendations. The order of use of polishers was followed by the instructions of each manufacturer (Table/Fig 1). In the control group, no polishing was performed. After finishing the polishing of all specimens, they underwent to a new roughness evaluation cycle in the digital rugosimeter, following the same protocols detailed above.
Statistical Analysis
The data obtained was carried out using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software version 23.0 (Inc. Chicago, IL, USA). To assess normality, the data were subjected to the Shapiro-Wilk test, followed by Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to compare the mean between the different types of resins and types of polishers. In the comparisons that the ANOVA test showed statistical significance, a two-by-two comparison was made using the Tukey’s test. All analysis used a 5% significance level.
Mean values and standard deviation of the initial roughness according to the type of resin and polisher are presented in (Table/Fig 2). It was verified that, on average, the level of roughness caused by the water sandpaper in the polishing tool was similar among the composite resins. This indicates homogeneity of the specimens distributed among the different types of polishers and resins at the beginning of the analysis.
(Table/Fig 3) showed the mean and standard deviation of the variation in roughness after polishing, according to the type of resin and polishing system. It was demonstrated that for Filtek One Bulk Fill resin (3M-ESPE) there was a lower value of surface roughness reduction when using Sof-Lex Diamond Polishing system when compared to Swivel Spiral, followed by EVE Decamp Plus Twist Spiral polisher (p-value <0.001). However, all polishing systems significantly reduced the roughness of composite resins when compared to control group.
For Aura resin (SDI) there was a higher roughness reduction value when the Swivel Spiral polish system was used, followed by the EVE Decamp plus Twist Spiral polish system, Sof-Lex Diamond Polishing System compared to the control group. Also, the mean roughness reduction comparison test between the types of polisher was significant (p-value <0.001), there was a significantly greater reduction in the roughness of EVE Decamp Plus Twist Spiral and Swivel Spiral polish system, compared to polish system from Sof-Lex Diamond Polishing System and control group.
In FGM resin, there was a higher value of roughness reduction when the Swivel Spiral polisher was used, followed by EVE Decamp Plus Twist Spiral polisher, and Sof-Lex Diamond Polishing System compared to the control group. The comparison test of the mean roughness reduction between the types of polisher was significant (p-value <0.001).
When comparing the resins, for EVE Decamp Plus Twist Spiral and Swivel Spiral polishers there was no significant difference in the level of roughness reduction between Filtek One Bulk Fill (3M-ESPE), Aura Ultra Universal Restorative (SDI) and Opus Bulk Fill (FGM) resins (p-value=0.589 and p-value=0.513; respectively). For Sof-Lex Diamond Polishing system there was a significantly greater reduction in roughness when used in Opus Bulk Fill (FGM) resin when compared to 3M-ESPE and Aura (p-value=0.013) (Table/Fig 3),(Table/Fig 4).
The first null hypothesis was rejected since a statistically significant difference was observed between the tested polishing systems. The Sof-Lex Spiral (3M-ESPE) promoted less reduction in the surface 3roughness of the three bulk fill composite resins studied when compared to the Spiral Swivel (Jota) and Decamp plus Twist Spiral (Odontomega) polishers. The second null hypothesis was also rejected since statistically significant differences were observed between the polishing ability of the different bulk fill restorative materials researched.
The aesthetic of composite resin restorations can be influenced by finishing and polishing steps, colour stability, as well as the material of choice used (16),(17). These composites, when in an acidic environment (low pH), can change their surface structure, losing the smoothness of the surface obtained with polishers, resulting in a rougher surface (18). However, when polishing is performed correctly, the surface roughness is considerably reduced, as seen in this comparative in-vitro study.
In the present study, the resins showed similarity in the initial surface roughness, as well as, in general, responded in a similar way to the polishers. It was also observed that the surface roughness is influenced not only by the type of resin, but also by the polishing procedure used. According to St-Pierre L et al., the quality of the polished surface depends on the flexibility of the instrument, its shape and hardness. When these materials are used in posterior teeth, the spiral rubber discs through their anatomical shape, guarantee to polish the scars and fissures with greater ease (19).
Restorations in composite resin without adequate polishing present roughness, being more susceptible to greater adhesion of bacterial plaque and greater presence of biofilm. These materials, regardless of the brand, tend to have a lower bacterial adhesion by S. Mutans compared to those that have not obtained any surface treatment, such as when going through the finishing step with diamond tips (20). According to Satou J et al., these factors can lead to the failure of the restorative procedure, in addition to facilitating the installation of periodontal diseases and secondary caries (21). In another study, Endo T et al., showed that not performing this step can lead to a decrease in longevity when compared to restorations that underwent finishing and polishing (6).
In a study by Bansal K et al., it was found that the use of Sof-Lex (3M/ESPE) spiral disc polisher provided a better surface smoothness when compare to others polishing systems. This finding differs from the present study, in which was observed that the Spiral Swivel (Jota) polisher had a greater reduction in roughness compared to the 3M polisher. This lower roughness reduction of Sof-lex spiral polishing system could be attributed to its greater spiral flexibility compared to EVE Decamp Plus (Odontomega) and Swivel (Jota) spirals (22).
Some researchers in the literature report the importance of using a polishing paste (23),(24). However, in this study, this hypothesis was discarded, as according to the manufacturers, the spirals discs have diamonds in their composition, dispensing with the use of diamond paste for polishing.
There is a variety of polishing materials available in the market, such as sanding discs, abrasive rubber tips, diamond pastes and spiral discs made of rubber impregnated with diamonds (8). This last method is presented as a clinically attractive option for being a single step and having greater simplicity in its use. Alves LMM et al., performed the test with these four types of polishers and according to the results; they all promoted an acceptable level of smoothness (25). In this study, three polishing systems commonly used in dental clinics were evaluated, however there are only a few studies in which evaluated EVE Decamp plus polishing systems performance (26),(27). From that, it is important to analyse each situation, since not all polishers are able to satisfactorily polish an occlusal surface, for example.
Composite resins are classified in different ways, but an important classification is the size and percentage of their inorganic filler added to the organic matrix. This can significantly influence surface roughness (28). It is well-established that resin compounds with smaller particle sizes facilitate higher gloss and lower surface roughness values after sequential polishing protocols (25),(29),(30). In the case of the present study, it was known that bulk fill resins have larger particles and in smaller amounts to provide a translucency that allows a light curing in larger increments (17). However, according to results obtained in (Table/Fig 3), Sof-Lex Diamond Polishing System presented statistical significance when all composite resins were compared, this data may be influenced by the particle size of resins, which is different although all composite resins were bulk fill. Thus, greater attention should be given to the choice of correct polishing system to be used in this class of restorative material. Similar studies have been tabulated in (Table/Fig 5) (13),(14),(22),(30).
Thus, with the results obtained in this study, it can be concluded that when polisher system is chosen and performed correctly, the surface roughness of the restorative material is enhanced, reducing the surface grooves and consequently minimising the chances of biofilm accumulation on its surface.
Limitation(s)
This study had limitation of difficulty in reproducing the clinical characteristics that could affect the results found such as contact with saliva and acidic drinks as well as habits that could change the roughness of materials such as brushing, use of abrasive agents and occlusal contacts.
The Spiral Swivel (Jota) and Decamp Plus Twist Spiral (EVE) polish system were more effective in reducing the surface roughness of bulk fill composite resins when compared to Sof-Lex Spiral (3M-ESPE). The bulk fill composite resins investigated performed similarly to be polished with the different spiral polishers studied. However, further studies are necessary in order to assess the long-term roughness of these materials.
DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2022/56321.16688
Date of Submission: Mar 13, 2022
Date of Peer Review: Apr 01, 2022
Date of Acceptance: May 28, 2022
Date of Publishing: Aug 01, 2022
AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? No
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? No
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. No
PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Mar 22, 2022
• Manual Googling: May 19, 2022
• iThenticate Software: May 26, 2022 (9%)
ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin
- Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
- Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
- Academic Search Complete Database
- Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
- Embase
- EBSCOhost
- Google Scholar
- HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
- Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
- Journal seek Database
- Popline (reproductive health literature)
- www.omnimedicalsearch.com