Effect of different finishing and polishing techniques on the surface roughness of microfilled, hybrid and packable composite resins

Abstract

This study examined the average surface roughness (Ra, µm) of 2 microfilled (Durafill and Perfection), 1 hybrid (Filtek Z250) and 2 packable composite resins (Surefil and Fill Magic), before (baseline) and after eight different finishing and polishing treatments. The surface roughness was assessed using a profilometer. Ten specimens of each composite resin were randomly subjected to one of the following finishing/polishing techniques: A -carbide burs; B -fine/extrafine diamond burs; C -Sof-Lex aluminum oxide discs; DSuper-Snap aluminum oxide discs; E -rubber polishing points + fine/extrafine polishing pastes; F -diamond burs + rubber polishing points + fine/extrafine polishing pastes; G -diamond burs + Sof-Lex system; H -diamond burs + Super-Snap system. Data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey's HSD test. Significant differences (p<0.05) were detected among both the resins and the finishing/polishing techniques. For all resins, the use of diamond burs resulted in the greatest surface roughness (Ra: 0.69 to 1.44 µm). The lowest Ra means were obtained for the specimens treated with Sof-Lex discs (Ra: 0.11 to 0.25 µm). The Ra values of Durafill were lower than those of Perfection and Filtek Z250, and these in turn had lower Ra than the packable composite resins. Overall, the smoothest surfaces were obtained with the use the complete sequence of Sof-Lex discs. In areas that could not be reached by the aluminum oxide discs, the carbide burs and the association between rubber points and polishing pastes produced satisfactory surface smoothness for the packable and hybrid composite resins, respectively.

Evaluation of surface roughness of a nanofill resin composite after simulated brushing and immersion in mouthrinses, alcohol and water

“…Only a polyester strip was used on the resin composite before polymerization with the intention of obtaining a smooth surface. Any form of additional polishing could lead to an increase in surface roughness 22 . A significant increase in surface roughness of the Filtek Z350 resin (3M/ESPE ® ) control group was observed when compared with the other groups (Figure 1).…”

Impact of Polishing Systems on the Surface Roughness and Microhardness of Nanocomposites

“…This is in accordance with the findings of earlier studies. 29,30 However, leaving resin surfaces as such is unacceptable due to the presence of the oxygen-inhibited layer, which will result in high water absorption and discoloration. 11,16,20,31 The surface roughness of composite resins is influenced by the size, hardness, and amount of filler material.…”

The Effect of Polishing Techniques and Time on the Surface Characteristics and Sealing Ability of Resin Composite Restorations After One-year Storage

“…[19][20][21][22] This means that the proper finishing and polishing of dental restoratives are critical clinical procedures that are not only for esthetics and longevity of restorations, but also for oral health. 23 Different methods can be used for restorations' finishing and polishing; 21 however, there is a lack of consensus as to which material and technique provides the smoothest surfaces for composites, 15,[24][25] and little research has been conducted on the influence of delay in polishing on surface roughness, hardness and the marginal sealing of composite restorations. 15,[26][27][28] Still, there are no publications that address the effect of aging processes or long-term storage related to these properties.…”