Surface evaluations of a nanocomposite after different finishing and polishing systems for anterior and posterior restorations

Abstract

This study aims to evaluate the effects of different finishing and polishing (F/P) systems on gloss and surface morphology of a new nanocomposite. Thirty discs of Filtek Universal Restorative material (3 M, ESPE) were prepared and divided into six groups (n = 5). Group A and B followed F/P protocols for anterior restorations, whereas Group C and D for posterior ones. Group E represented the control (covered by Mylar strip) and Group F represented the nanocomposite placement by means of clinical hand instruments; Groups E and F did not undergo F/P procedures. Among the polished groups, Group B showed the highest values (68.54 ± 7.54 GU), followed by Group A and D (46.87 ± 5.52 GU; 53.76 ± 2.65 GU). Finally, Group C (37.38 ± 4.93 GU) displayed the lowest results. Overall, Group E showed the highest gloss values (93.45 ± 8.27 GU), while Group F presented the lowest ones (1.74 ± 0.64 GU).Surface analysis revealed that Group A, C, and D displayed a smooth surface. Group B showed the lowest irregularities. Group E exhibited the most uniform superficial morphology. On the other hand, Group F displayed the most irregular one. In conclusion, using the tested material, only two protocols achieved appropriate gloss values.Then, clinicians might use the protocols of Group B and Group D, for anterior and posterior restorations, respectively.

Development and maintenance of surface gloss of dental composites after polishing and brushing: Review of the literature

“…The lowest Ra values obtained after using commercially available polishers was 0.08 μm and was achieved with aluminum oxide discs, such as Sof‐Lex 7 . A total of 11 studies used Sof‐Lex discs, and almost all of them achieved the best or second‐best surface polish 7,9,12,14,15,36–38,42,44,48 . Enhance/PoGo, or only PoGo, used on the nanofill composite Filtek Supreme produced a similar level of surface roughness as reported for Sof‐Lex discs, 7,14,20,35,37,38,44 but one study found significantly higher gloss on the nanofill composite polished with PoGo vs Sof‐Lex discs 14 .…”

“…Forty‐six articles were included to address the first objective of the study to determine the manner in which filler particle size, composition, shape and distribution affect the capacity to obtain high gloss/smoothness on different direct composite formulations, as well as the effect of finishing/polishing methods on these materials, and these are summarized in Table 2 7–52 . The names of the composites studied, the finishers/polishers used, and the ranges of surface roughness (Ra/Sa) and/or gloss (GU; 60°) reported is presented, along with the main conclusions of each study.…”

“…7 A total of 11 studies used Sof-Lex discs, and almost all of them achieved the best or second-best surface polish. 7,9,12,14,15,[36][37][38]42,44,48 Enhance/PoGo, or only PoGo, used on the nanofill composite Filtek Supreme produced a similar level of surface roughness as reported for Sof-Lex discs, 7,14,20,35,37,38,44 (Ra) after toothbrush abrasion for all composites tested, except for a few studies that showed no increase in surface roughness (Ra) after toothbrush abrasion, for two composites; one nanofill, Filtek Supreme, 63,64,77 and one nanohybrid, Grandio (Table 3). 61,63 Gloss (GU) was measured before and after toothbrush abrasion in 26 articles, and the gloss decreased for all materials tested after toothbrushing, except for five composites reported by some authors, the microfill Durafil, 54 the microhybrid Clearfil AP-X, 79 the nanofill Filtek Supreme, 54,63,77 the nanohybrid Grandio, 61 and the flowable GrandioFlow.…”

The Microhardness and Surface Roughness Assessment of Bulk-Fill Resin Composites Treated with and without the Application of an Oxygen-Inhibited Layer and a Polishing System: An In Vitro Study

“…On the other hand, polishing with Sof-Lex discs has limitations when used on the occlusal surfaces of posterior teeth because the grooves and elevations do not allow a complete surface approach, preventing the complete removal of OIL. Therefore, their use is recommended in areas with smooth surfaces such as the buccal surfaces of anterior teeth [ 59 ].…”

Microscopic Comparison of the effect of Three Polishing Systems on a Nanofiller Composite Resin

“…Regarding the average roughness of the surface of the tooth enamel, corresponding to the approximate values of 0.64μm in the Roughness Index, therefore, this roughness index is a reference to follow since the central nervous system interprets irregularities in the oral cavity greater than 15μm as unpleasant. Therefore, in any polishing system, this value must be considered as a minimum concerning polishing systems, they give the restoration an ideal finish and anatomy through an adequate reduction of roughness with special instruments to achieve it [17][18][19].…”