PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 28, 2026Frontiers in Materials0 citationsOpen Access

The effects of different surface treatments on the surface properties and microstructure of restorative materials: an in vitro study

QLQiao LiuQHQingqing HuXWXiao Wang

Key Points

  • The study aims to evaluate how different surface treatments affect the properties and structure of various dental restorative materials.
  • Specimens were grouped for ultrasonic treatment, two types of sandblasting, polishing, and a control group.
  • Surface roughness and volume loss were measured before and after treatments using specialized equipment.
  • Surface morphology was analyzed with scanning electron microscopy.
  • Statistical analyses included paired t-tests, one-way ANOVA, and two-way ANOVA.
  • Significant interaction found between treatment method and material type affecting volume loss and surface roughness.
  • Sandblasting methods improved surfaces more than ultrasonic treatment and polishing.
  • Sodium bicarbonate sandblasting showed the best results for titanium and glass ionomer.
  • Glass ionomer experienced the highest volume loss while ceramic had the lowest among materials.

Abstract

Introduction This study aims to systematically evaluate the differential effects of ultrasonic treatment, erythritol sandblasting, sodium bicarbonate sandblasting, and polishing on the surface roughness (Ra), volume loss, and surface microtopography of four dental restorative materials: composite resin, glass ionomer, ceramic, and titanium. Methods Specimens of each material were randomly assigned to the following treatment groups ( n = 16, for each group): Group A (ultrasonic treatment), Group B (erythritol sandblasting), Group C (sodium bicarbonate sandblasting), Group D (polishing), and Group E (non-surface treated control group). Ra was measured before and after treatment using a surface profilometer. Volume loss was quantified with an electronic micrometer, and surface morphology was examined by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Data were analyzed using paired t-tests, one-way ANOVA, and two-way ANOVA to examine the main effects and interactions. Results Two-way ANOVA revealed a significant interaction between material type and treatment method for both volume loss and Ra ( p 0.001), indicating that the treatment efficacy was material-dependent. Both sandblasting methods resulted in significantly greater surface improvement, when compared to ultrasonic treatment and polishing ( p 0.05). Sodium bicarbonate sandblasting yielded the greatest improvement for titanium (ΔRa = −0.295) and glass ionomer (ΔRa = −0.211). Erythritol sandblasting provided effective surface leveling with more uniform and milder morphological changes. SEM confirmed the uniform abrasion after sandblasting versus scratches or residual debris after polishing or ultrasonic treatment, respectively. Glass ionomer had the highest volume loss (139–153 μm), while ceramic had the lowest volume loss (14–17 μm). Conclusion Sandblasting was overall superior to ultrasonic and polishing treatments, as evidenced by the improved Ra, controlled volume loss, and supporting micro-topographical observations. Sodium bicarbonate sandblasting is suitable for reducing aggressive roughness, while erythritol sandblasting is preferable for minimal and uniform surface treatment. Among the tested materials, ceramic had the best wear resistance and surface stability across all surface treatments.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Liu et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69a285aa0a974eb0d3c00ae7https://doi.org/10.3389/fmats.2026.1750373
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1The Effect of Finishing and Polishing Sequences on The Surface Roughness of Three Different Nanocomposites and Composite/Enamel and Composite/Cementum Interfaces2020 · 63 citations
  2. 2Predictability of Microbial Adhesion to Dental Materials by Roughness Parameters2019 · 67 citations
  3. 3Influence of cleaning methods on zirconia ceramic bonding with long-elapsed time post-airborne-particle abrasion2025 · 2 citations
  4. 4Effect of Nanostructures on the Properties of Glass Ionomer Dental Restoratives/Cements: A Comprehensive Narrative Review2021 · 65 citations
  5. 5Effect of Air-Polishing and Different Post-Polishing Methods on Surface Roughness of Nanofill and Microhybrid Resin Composites2022 · 17 citations