Effect of different scaling instruments on the roughness of esthetic resin composite restorations: an in vitro study.

OBJECTIVES: This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the effect of different scaling methods on the roughness of various resin composites used in anterior teeth. METHODS: Seven commercially available resin composite materials were tested: 3M™ Filtek™ Z350 XT, Beautifil II, and Beautifil II LS, G-ænial Anterior, IPS Empress Direct, Tokuyama PALFIQUE LX5, Vittra APS FKG. Disc-shaped specimens (6 mm in diameter and 2 mm in thickness) were prepared using a 3D-printed mold. A total of 30 specimens per brand were fabricated and randomly divided into three sub-groups according to the scaling technique: stainless-steel hand scaler (metal scaling), plastic hand scaler (plastic scaling), and piezoelectric ultra-sonic scaler tip (ultra-sonic scaling). Baseline surface roughness values were measured using a non-contact optical profilometer. Each specimen was then subjected to 40 scaling strokes, and post-scaling surface roughness was remeasured using the same method. The change in average surface roughness was calculated. Two and One-way ANOVA with Tukey's post hoc test analyzed the data (α= 0.05). RESULTS: Both scaler method and resin composite type were determinant factors (p < 0.001) in modulating the roughness of resin composite restorations. Metal scaling consistently produced the greatest surface roughness change (ΔRa, µm) across all composites, with G-ænial Anterior recording the highest ΔRa value (2.23 ± 0.91 µm) and IPS Empress Direct the lowest (1.23 ± 0.82 µm). Plastic scaling resulted in the least ΔRa across all materials (range: 0.00-0.10 µm), with IPS Empress Direct recording the highest change (0.10 ± 0.08 µm) and G-ænial Anterior and Tokuyama PALFIQUE LX5 revealing almost no change. Ultra-sonic scaling produced intermediate roughness change, with G-ænial Anterior again recording the highest value (1.61 ± 0.98 µm). Metal scaling produced significantly higher ΔRa than both plastic and ultra-sonic methods in most resin composites (p < 0.05), while plastic and ultra-sonic groups were largely comparable. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of the study, plastic scalers caused the least surface alteration and may be considered the most conservative option for maintaining the surface smoothness of resin composites.