A Comparative Analysis of Different Finishing and Polishing Devices on Nanofilled, Microfilled, and Hybrid Composite: A Scanning Electron Microscopy and Profilometric Study

Abstract

The continuous development of esthetically acceptable adhesive restorative material has made a variety of tooth-colored materials available for clinical use. The advent of visible light polymerizing resin and the use of finer filler particles permit resin composites to be polished to higher degree. The effect of polishing systems on surface finish has been reported to be material-dependent, and the effectiveness of these systems was mostly product-dependent. Hence, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of finishing and polishing systems on the surface roughness of nanofilled, microfilled, and hybrid composite restorative materials available in the market.How to cite this articleYadav RD, Raisingani D, Jindal D, Mathur R. A Comparative Analysis of Different Finishing and Polishing Devices on Nanofilled, Microfilled, and Hybrid Composite: A Scanning Electron Microscopy and Profilometric Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2016;9(3):201-208.

Impact of additional polishing method on physical, micromorphological, and microtopographical properties of conventional composites and bulk fill

“…Contrary to what was evidenced by Yadav, Raisingani, Jindal, and Mathur () in relation to the poorer finishing/polishing response of the Filtek Z250 XT composite compared to other micro and nanoparticles, in the present study, the Filtek Z250 XT stood out in the finishing/polishing and finishing/polishing groups plus additional polishing by the lower mean roughness values. This contradictory behavior is possibly due to the interaction of this composite with the finishing and polishing systems used in the present study, which may not promote a removal of the composite particles such as Sof Lex Pop‐On used by Yadav et al ().…”

“…Contrary to what was evidenced by Yadav, Raisingani, Jindal, and Mathur () in relation to the poorer finishing/polishing response of the Filtek Z250 XT composite compared to other micro and nanoparticles, in the present study, the Filtek Z250 XT stood out in the finishing/polishing and finishing/polishing groups plus additional polishing by the lower mean roughness values. This contradictory behavior is possibly due to the interaction of this composite with the finishing and polishing systems used in the present study, which may not promote a removal of the composite particles such as Sof Lex Pop‐On used by Yadav et al (). As the granulation of the Sof Lex Pop‐On system (Red 17.01 μm; Medium Orange 7.01 μm; Light Orange 5.72 μm; Yellow 1.68 μm) (Yadav et al, ) is larger than the system in this work, it is probable that the removal of particles of charge is greater by the one, which, consequently, favors an increase in the surface roughness (Figure ).…”

“…Yap, Yap, Teo, and Ng (2004) evaluated the roughness of the surface after using the Sof-Lex Brush (3M ESPE) and found that this brush produced the smooth and polished surface comparable to that followed by the use of a rubber impregnated with diamond particles. Venturini et al (2006) Contrary to what was evidenced by Yadav, Raisingani, Jindal, and Mathur (2016) Pop-On used by Yadav et al (2016). As the granulation of the Sof Lex Pop-On system (Red 17.01 μm; Medium Orange 7.01 μm; Light Orange 5.72 μm; Yellow 1.68 μm) (Yadav et al, 2016) is larger than the system in this work, it is probable that the removal of particles of charge is greater by the one, which, consequently, favors an increase in the surface roughness (Figure 1).…”

“…This contradictory behavior is possibly due to the interaction of this composite with the finishing and polishing systems used in the present study, which may not promote a removal of the composite particles such as Sof Lex Pop‐On used by Yadav et al (). As the granulation of the Sof Lex Pop‐On system (Red 17.01 μm; Medium Orange 7.01 μm; Light Orange 5.72 μm; Yellow 1.68 μm) (Yadav et al, ) is larger than the system in this work, it is probable that the removal of particles of charge is greater by the one, which, consequently, favors an increase in the surface roughness (Figure ). These findings confirm that the surface properties of dental composites depend on both the restorative material and the finishing and polishing system used (Kaizer et al, ), and that the organic portion may have an influence on the roughness.…”

Topography and Microhardness Changes of Nanofilled Resin Composite Restorations Submitted to Different Finishing and Polishing Systems and Erosive Challenge

“…It has been previously shown that the PoGo finishing and polishing systems generated a greater surface roughness of the Z250 resin when compared to the Soflex type, disagreeing with our results where no difference was observed between the groups. This may be explained because the Z250 resin is a micro-hybrid resin, and larger particles offer less protection on the resin matrix from a finishing and polishing process [20].…”