The Effect of Different Polishing Systems on Surface Roughness and Gloss of Various Resin Composites

Costa, Juliana da; Ferracane, Jack L.; Paravina, Rade D.; Mazur, Rui Fernando; Roeder, Leslie B.

doi:10.1111/j.1708-8240.2007.00104.x

Cited by 143 publications

(188 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

167

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Da Costa et al 41) reported similar effects as observed for GRA when evaluating diamond polishers with different diamond grain sizes, where a polisher with 10-µm diamond particles created a smoother surface than an instrument with 5-µm diamond particles. Presumably, the relatively large diamond powder particles of Compo Master had a strong impact on the large GRA filler particles, loosening them from the matrix and making them vulnerable for the consecutive paste polishing with smaller diamond particles.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 59%

Surface texture and roughness of polished nanofill and nanohybrid resin composites

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nanofiller-containing resin composites have gained appreciable market share in dentistry due to their claims of high mechanical strength and low polymerization contraction. In this study, the polishability of one nanofill (Filtek Supreme XT/FIL) and three nanohybrid materials (Grandio/GRA, Tetric EvoCeram/TET, Venus Diamond/VED) was investigated using surface profilometry and SEM. After the specimens were cured under a Mylar strip or pre-ground with 600-grit SiC paper, three polishing systems were applied and their polishing effects compared: diamond polishing points, a diamond paste, and urethane-backed aluminum oxide disks. Except for the profilometry results obtained by glass filler-containing GRA and VED with one polishing system that comprised the consecutive application of diamond particles and a diamond polishing paste, the final roughness (Ra) of all other specimens were lower than the clinically acceptable 0.2 µm threshold. The surface textures of the polished nanofill FIL and nanohybrid TET were uniformly smooth, whereas relief polishing effects and filler extrusion of varying extents were seen on the nanohybrid composites GRA and VED.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 59%

Surface texture and roughness of polished nanofill and nanohybrid resin composites

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…5 No significant difference was found between the groups that initially underwent finishing and polishing with the Soflex disk when compared with the groups that were repolished after applying the prophylactic methods (Table 2). In this regard, the results obtained by Yap et al,14 in their evaluation of the surface roughness of resin composites subjected to finishing and polishing systems, showed that the Soflex abrasive disks promoted greater surface smoothness, corroborating the studies conducted by Da Costa et al 12 and Ergücü and Türkün, 15 where the average polishing with Soflex abrasive disks was higher (0.470 µm) than with the enhanced abrasive rubber cups (1.180 µm).…”

supporting

confidence: 57%

“…Polishing affords greater tolerance of the periodontal tissue to the restorations, 12 and according to Chung,13 these procedures produce reduced roughness, ranging from 26 to 74%. In the present study, Soflex pop-on abrasive disks were used (3M, São Paulo, Brazil) to perform the finishing and polishing techniques, in view of the fact that these mechanisms have demonstrated excellent results in the performance of finishing and polishing with resin composite restorations.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Dental Prophylaxis Techniques on the Surface Roughness of Resin Composites

Gomes

Mendes

Filho

et al. 2018

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim:The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of dental prophylaxis techniques on surface roughness of composite resins. Materials and methods:A total of 36 nanohybrid resin composite test specimens were fabricated and divided into three groups (n = 12). They were kept in distilled water at 37°C for 24 hours and submitted to the finishing and polishing technique. For the prophylactic techniques, in group G1, a mixture of pumice stone and distilled water was used with the aid of a rubber cup; in group G2, Herjos-F prophy paste was used with a rubber cup; and in group G3, a bicarbonate jet spray was used. Afterward, all the samples were repolished using the Soflex pop-on disks. A roughness meter was used to measure surface roughness at three points in time: Before the prophylactic techniques (1st evaluation), afterward (2nd evaluation), and following repeat polishing (3rd evaluation).Results: It was found that roughness values changed significantly between the 1st and 2nd evaluations (p < 0.05) and between the 2nd and 3rd evaluations (p < 0.05), showing that the change in roughness depended on the type of prophylactic treatment. Roughness was significantly higher after the bicarbonate jet (p < 0.05). Conclusion:Prophylaxis using the sodium bicarbonate jet significantly altered the roughness of nanoparticle-reinforced resin.Clinical significance: Dental prophylaxis is the most common practice employed to remove bacterial plaque and other coatings. However, one side effect of the cleaning may be a rougher surface subject to degradation and staining. The correct use of prophylactic devices and avoiding prolonged use on resin restorations reduce surface roughness.

show abstract

“…Effects of one-step and multi-step polishing systems on the surface roughness of composites have been reported in literature [3] [9] [11] [12]. There are many different finishing and polishing systems available in the market.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Microfilled composites are used for esthetic restorations because their filler size provides higher polishability than conventional composites containing large filler particles [12] [24]. The application of nanotechnology to composite research is of great benefit [25].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of One-Step and Multistep Polishing Systems for the Surface Roughness of Resin Composites

Baltacıoğlu¹,

Irmak²,

Ulusoy³

et al. 2016

OJST

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: This study analyzed the effect of different finishing and polishing systems on the surface roughness of a microfilled (Amaris), and a nanofilled resin composite (Clearfil Majesty Esthetic) using Scanning electron microscope (SEM) analysis and surface roughness tester. Materials and Methods: Thirty five specimens of each material were prepared in a plexiglass mold (10 mm in diameter and 2 mm in depth) and cured against a Mylar matrix strip to create a baseline surface. The average surface roughness was measured using a surface profilometer (Mahr Perthometer SP4, Germany) in three different positions on each sample before and after finishing with one of the seven finishing procedures: Procedure 1: Mylar strip (control), Procedure 2: Tungsten carbide burs, Procedure 3: Diamond burs, Procedure 4: Procedure 2 + one-step diamond micropolisher (PoGo), Procedure 5: Procedure 2 + multi-step discs (Super-snap), Procedure 6: Procedure 3 + one-step diamond micropolisher (PoGo), Procedure 7: Procedure 3 + multi-step discs (Supersnap). The obtained data were analyzed using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Duncan test at a p = 0.05 significance level. Results: Nanofilled composite showed significantly lower Ra values than microfilled composite in procedures 4, 6 and 7 (p < 0.05). In other procedures, there were no significant differences among composites (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Nanofilled resin composite showed significantly lower Ra values than microfilled resin composite. Regardless of finishing methods, diamond micro-polisher produced smoother surfaces than polishing discs.

show abstract

The Effect of Different Polishing Systems on Surface Roughness and Gloss of Various Resin Composites

Cited by 143 publications

References 18 publications

Surface texture and roughness of polished nanofill and nanohybrid resin composites

Surface texture and roughness of polished nanofill and nanohybrid resin composites

Effect of Dental Prophylaxis Techniques on the Surface Roughness of Resin Composites

Comparison of One-Step and Multistep Polishing Systems for the Surface Roughness of Resin Composites

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About