Effects of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface texture of resin composites

Chung, Kwok Hung

doi:10.1016/0109-5641(94)90041-8

Cited by 157 publications

(171 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

141

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The Ra values obtained with diamond burs (technique B) were significantly greater than those obtained with the use of carbide burs (technique A) for all composite resins, which is consistent with the findings of other studies (6,7,9,10,(16)(17)(18). These results suggest that diamond burs (fine and extrafine) are instruments only recommended for initial countering of the restorations.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

“…The Sof-Lex system yielded better results than the Super Snap system for Durafill, but no significant differences were observed between both polishing systems for Perfection The aluminum oxide discs have been shown to produce better surface smoothness because they do not displace the composite fillers (17,18). Berastegui et al (16) reported that the fillers in microfilled composite resins are so small that their stiffness is reduced and therefore the aluminum oxide discs are best recommended because their malleability promotes a homogeneous abrasion of the fillers and the resin matrix.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The control groups (polyester matrix) for both resins (G1 Sg A and G2 Sg A) (Figure 2) achieved the lowest mean values for Ra and differed significantly from all the other finishing/polishing systems tested (p < 0.05). These findings were consistent with other studies that also showed lowest mean values for Ra when used polyester matriz 6,[17][18][19][20][21] . In G1 (Filtek™ P60) (Figure 2), Sg D (Enhance™ tips, 0.12 μm) presented the highest mean values for Ra compared with Sg C (Sof-Lex ® discs, 0.07 μm) and Sg B (felt disc + diamond paste, 0.08 μm), respectively (p < 0.05).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Effect of different finishing: polishing systems on the surface roughness of two heat-treated composite resins

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to compare the surface roughness achieved by different finishing/polishing systems on two composite resins for direct use after thermic treatment. The specimens (n = 40 per group (G); G1 = Filtek P60; G2 = Fill Magic ® ) were set up on a matrix of stainless steel with circular internal niches (Ø = 10.0 mm; h = 2.0 mm). Next, they were subjected to thermal treatment in a heated chamber at 170 °C for 10 minutes. They were then divided randomly into four subgroups (Sg) to receive the surface treatment according to the finishing/ polishing systems tested (n = 10): Sg A: Control; Sg B: Diamond ® felt disc + Diamond Excel ® diamond paste; Sg C: Sof-Lex ® discs; and Sg D: Enhance silicon tips. The mean roughness (Ra) was determined using a digital surface roughnes tester. Data was analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc test (α = 0.05). Differences between the surface treatments were found on both resins (p < 0.05). In G1, the lowest mean Ra values were observed using Sg C (0.07 μm) and the highest for Sg D (0.12 μm) (p < 0.05). There was no difference between Sg B (0.08 μm) and Sg C (0.07 μm) (p = 0.076). In G2, there was a progressive increase in mean Ra values from Sg D (0.05 μm) to Sg C (0.06 μm) and to Sg B (0.07 μm) (p < 0.05). It was concluded that the finishing/polishing systems modified Ra on both resins.

show abstract

“…As for the surface quality of resin composite restorations, it has been established that it is closely related to both the polishing procedure and inherent material characteristics such as size, hardness, amount of filler particles, and structure of the resin matrix [25][26][27] .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Effects of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface texture of resin composites

Cited by 157 publications

References 19 publications

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

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

Effect of different finishing: polishing systems on the surface roughness of two heat-treated composite resins

Surface texture and roughness of polished nanofill and nanohybrid resin composites

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About