Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 27, 2025
Roughness Impact of Piezoelectric Dental Scaler on Two Distinct Flowable Composite Filling Materials
Published on: January 10, 2025
Influence of Manual and Ultrasonic Scaling on Surface Roughness of Four Different Base Materials Used to Elevate
H S Ismail1, A I Ali2, F Garcia-Godoy3
1*Hoda Ismail, assistant lecturer, Operative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt.
Aim:
To evaluate and compare the effects of both manual and ultrasonic scaling on surface roughness of four different base materials, used for elevating dentin/cementum gingival margins of proximal cavities.
Methods And Materials:
Eighty human upper molars with compound Class II mesial cavities, with gingival margins 1 mm below the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ), were divided into four different groups according to the type of the base material used; resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI), glass hybrid (HV-GIC), flowable bulk-fill resin composite (Bulk Flow) and bioactive ionic resin (Activa). This was followed by completing the restorations with the same resin composite. All materials were used according to the manufacturers' instructions. All groups were further subdivided into two subgroups according to the scaling technique: manual (hand) or ultrasonic. All restorative and scaling procedures were performed after fixation of specimens with acrylic beside neighboring teeth to simulate natural contact. The mean surface roughness (Ra, μm) of all specimens was measured quantitatively and qualitatively by a three-dimensional (3D) surface analyzer system at two stages; (1) after thermal cycling for 5000 cycles without scaling and (2) after scaling. Data were statistically analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA), Tukey post hoc tests, and paired sample t-tests (at α=0.05).
Results:
For baseline readings, the Bulk Flow group had the lowest Ra values, while HV-GIC group had the highest. RMGI and Activa groups had no statistical significant difference between their Ra values (p>0.05). For post scaling readings, hand scaling had significantly lower Ra values than ultrasonic scaling in all the material groups (p<0.05), except in the Bulk Flow group, where both scaling methods were not significantly different from each other (p>0.05).
Conclusion:
Bulk Flow had the smoothest surfaces when cured against a matrix band compared with the other tested base materials. When hand and ultrasonic scaling methods were compared, the latter technique had more detrimental effect on the surface texture of the four tested base materials.
