What question did this study set out to answer?

This research aims to assess how different modeling liquids and adhesive agents affect the color stability and surface roughness of resin composite materials.

April 25, 2026Open Access

Influence of modeling liquids and adhesive agents on the surface properties of resin composite

Key Points

This research aims to assess how different modeling liquids and adhesive agents affect the color stability and surface roughness of resin composite materials.
160 disk-shaped specimens were made from a nanohybrid resin composite (Filtek Z550).
Specimens were divided into eight groups based on surface treatment and underwent color and roughness measurements before and after coffee aging.
Statistical analysis was performed using non-parametric tests including Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests with Bonferroni correction.
In unpolished specimens, air exposure led to the most discoloration (AIR–A, highest ΔE₀₀) while Scotchbond Universal (SU–A) showed the least.
Polished specimens showed significant color differences, with modeling agents affecting discoloration rates (ESTML–B had the highest) and surface roughness (MS–B had the lowest).
Finishing and polishing improved surface quality, demonstrating the significance of modeling agents.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of modeling liquids and adhesive agents with different compositions on the color stability and surface roughness of resin composite surfaces under clinically relevant conditions, particularly in areas that may remain unpolished after anatomical modeling. The influence of different oxygen inhibition control protocols and the presence or absence of finishing and polishing procedures were also evaluated. A total of 160 disk-shaped specimens (6 mm diameter, 2 mm thickness) were prepared using a nanohybrid resin composite (Filtek Z550). Specimens were assigned to eight groups according to surface treatment: air exposure, Mylar strip, glycerin gel, or application of five different modeling agents or adhesive systems (Optibond FL, Scotchbond Universal, GC Modeling Liquid, Estenia C α = 0.05). Significant differences in color change (ΔE₀₀) were observed among both A and B subgroups. In unpolished specimens, modeling agent application significantly improved color stability; AIR–A showed the highest discoloration, whereas SU–A exhibited the lowest ΔE₀₀ values, with no significant differences among the modeling agent–applied A groups. In the polished condition, MS–B demonstrated the lowest ΔE₀₀ values and ESTML–B the highest. Among the modeling agent applied B groups, ESTML–B showed significantly greater discoloration than SU–B, while SU–B did not differ from GCML–B, OFL–B, or CWR–B. Surface roughness (Ra) differed significantly among groups at baseline and after aging. AIR–A and GLY–A exhibited the highest roughness in unpolished specimens, whereas MS showed the lowest values. The modeling agent applied unpolished groups did not differ significantly. Polishing significantly reduced Ra in all groups except MS; after polishing, MS–B, GCML–B, and SU–B demonstrated the lowest roughness, whereas ESTML–B exhibited the highest. Finishing and polishing procedures are essential for achieving optimal surface quality and color stability of resin composite restorations. However, in anatomically complex areas where complete polishing may be limited, the controlled application of a modeling liquid or adhesive agent during the modeling phase may contribute to improved surface characteristics compared with no agent application.

اسأل الذكاء الاصطناعي

Bookmark

View Full Paper