Surface profile characterization of prefabricated resin composite veneers following simulated abrasion. An in vitro study

Angeliki Karveli; Efstratios Papazoglou; Despina Koletsi; Maria Anagnostou

doi:10.4317/jced.60420

Surface profile characterization of prefabricated resin composite veneers following simulated abrasion. An in vitro study

J Clin Exp Dent. 2023 Oct 1;15(10):e796-e803. doi: 10.4317/jced.60420. eCollection 2023 Oct.

Authors

Angeliki Karveli¹, Efstratios Papazoglou¹, Despina Koletsi^{2

3}, Maria Anagnostou¹

Affiliations

¹ Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece.
² Clinic of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
³ Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, CA, USA.

Abstract

Background: The surface of resin composite veneers is susceptible to the effect of the oral environment and surface profile characterization of different veneer systems is of importance to the longevity and clinical performance of the materials. The aim of the present study was to evaluate surface profile properties, as defined by gloss and roughness parameters, of prefabricated resin composite veneers (PCV) and compare with a laboratory resin composite (LRC) system, following simulated abrasion.

Material and methods: Twenty eight composite veneers equally divided to a prefabricated composite veneer (PCV) system and a laboratory resin composite (LRC) (control group) were tested following abrasion under a toothbrush simulator. Alterations in gloss (ΔGloss) and roughness (ΔSa, ΔSz, ΔSci, ΔSdr) parameters were examined (after- before abrasion) using a glossmeter and a 3D-optical profilometer, respectively. Correlation matrices between ΔGloss and ΔRoughness parameters were sought across the two resin composite veneer groups.

Results: Τhere was weak evidence that the PCV group exhibited less change in surface gloss after experimental abrasion (PCV vs LRC: mean difference ΔGloss in GU, (MD: -1.7; 95% CI: -3.3, -0.1; p=0.04). For the roughness parameters, ΔSci in nm3/nm2 (MD : 0.2; 95% CI: 0.1, 0.3; p=0.002) and ΔSdr in percentage (MD: 10.6; 95% CI: 3.7, 17.5; p=0.004), exhibited the most pronounced differences between the groups with strong evidence demonstrating greater changes for the PCV group compared to the LRC. No strong correlation pattern could be identified between changes in gloss and roughness parameters across the groups.

Conclusions: After abrasion, both PCV and LCR showed an increase in surface gloss, while the PCV group demonstrated a rougher core surface profile than LRC. Key words:Prefabricated, resin composite, veneers, gloss, roughness.