The effect of three polishing systems on surface roughness of flowable, microhybrid, and packable resin composites

Abstract

Objectives:The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of three different polishing systems on the surface roughness of three types of resin composite materials.Materials and Methods:Three types of resin composites (Heliomolar flow, TPH spectrum, and Tetric Ceram HB) and three polishing systems (Astropol, Enhance, and Soflex) were used. A total number of 40 samples were prepared from each one of the restorative materials and divided randomly into four groups (n = 10) according to the polishing procedure. The first group underwent no treatment and was used as a control group. Each one of the remaining groups was polished with one of the tested polishing systems. After completion of sample preparation, the mean surface roughness (Ra) value was measured using a surface profilometer. Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).Results:The control group of each material recorded the lowest Ra value. Among the tested polishing systems, the groups finished with Soflex system exhibited the lowest Ra value. Among the resin composites, Heliomolar flow exhibited the lowest Ra value, regardless of the polishing system used.Conclusions:The smoothest surface of all types of resin composite was achieved under Mylar strip.

Effect of Multiple Use and Sterilization of Single-Step Polishing Systems On the Surface Roughness of Resin Composite

“…showed the least statistically significant surface roughness average R a , a fact that was compatible with many other studies where the Mylar/celluloid strip was used as a control guide for the lowest surface roughness 1,[32][33][34] . However, it was also found that all the first Reuse/Sterilization Cycle Groups (GS1, OS1, DS1) as well as, two of the second Reuse/Sterilization Cycle groups (GS2, OS2), even though showing higher R a values than Control group, yet there was no statically significant difference neither between them nor between them and the control group (71.3 nm).…”

Comparative Evaluation of Micro-hardness and Surface Roughness of Different Composites Resins and Polishing System (In-Vitro Study)

“…The filler particles that were not abraded away from the resin matrix, which finally led to the creation of the smoothest surface of the tested resin composites [24] . Moreover, the smoothest surface of resin composite is achieved under Mylar's strip, but this surface cannot be stabled clinically due to no flat tooth surface exists; otherwise, the complex tooth morphology will necessitate the clinician to make finishing and polishing for the restoration to reassemble the tooth complex morphology [25] . Furthermore, control group (Mylar's strip) the resulting surface is polymer-rich and provides the restoration relatively unstable.…”

Influence of different polishing and aging periods on the surface roughness of composite resins

“…However, the successful the ability of polish of composite resins can be challenging. Some reports in the literature correlate early restoration failures and marginal defects from the finishing and polishing process (Hassan, Nabih, Mossa, & Baroudi, 2015). This occurs, since these are affected by the technique and time of polishing, in addition to being sensitive to the characteristics and composition of the material (Babina et al, 2020;Hassan et al, 2015).…”

“…This topic is still remains a controversial topic (Opdam et al, 2014;Schmitt et al, 2011). Polishing at the wrong time can affect physical properties, causing irreversible damage and failure in restorations (Babina et al, 2020;Hassan et al, 2015;Yap, Yap, Teo, & Ng, 2004).…”