In Vitro Analysis of Different Polishing Systems on the Color Stability and Surface Roughness of Nanocomposite Resins

Abstract

Aim: To assess the different polishing systems on the color stability and surface roughness of nanocomposite resins. Materials and methods: A total of 60 composite resin samples were fabricated. The Tetric N Ceram composite was compacted into the custommade cylindrical metallic mold of internal diameter 6 × 6 mm. Based on the polishing system used, sixty samples were divided into three groups. Group I: Sof-Lex, group II: Shofu super-snap polishing disks, and group III: Astropol. The samples in each group were immersed in beverage, that is tea. Spectrophotometer was used to measure the color of the samples after staining period. And surface profilometer was used to measure all surface roughness. Results: Of the three groups, Sof-Lex polishing group reported the least mean value of 0.458 ± 0.118 succeeded by Astropol polishing group (0.494 ± 0.121) and Shofu super-snap polishing group (0.540 ± 0.031) having the higher mean value. Statistically significant difference was found between the different polishing systems calculated by analysis of variance. And color change between the groups was not statistically significant. Conclusion:We conclude that a composite polished with Sof-Lex was a superior polish compared to Astropol polishing group and Shofu supersnap polishing group. There was only a minimal difference in the color stability of the composite between the groups. Clinical significance: Excellent finishing and polishing are the critical steps to enhance the esthetics and longevity of the composite restorations. High strength, fracture toughness, surface hardness, optimum polishability, and gloss are the functional properties which need assessment while a resin composite is used for restoration.

Comparative study on the effects of different polishing methods on tooth surface microstructure and roughness following initial periodontal treatment

“…T A B L E 7 Pigmentation depth (μm) of the three different polishing methods and the control group. polishing discs (Fan et al, 2017;Vadavadagi et al, 2019). These findings are in agreement with the results of our study.…”

“…In addition, the disc has a brand new 3D spherical abrasive coating, which enhances the removal of debris during polishing and resulting in a smooth, shiny surface with relatively low heat generation (Tepe et al, 2023 ). Some studies have shown that the surface roughness of orthodontic teeth after bracket removal can be significantly reduced by using state‐of‐the‐art polishing discs (Fan et al, 2017 ; Vadavadagi et al, 2019 ). These findings are in agreement with the results of our study.…”

Microscopic Comparison of the effect of Three Polishing Systems on a Nanofiller Composite Resin

“…The polishing of composite resins is a determining factor in the aesthetic and functional characteristics of composite resin restorations, also influencing their longevity, some studies have found that multi-step polishing systems are less effective than single-step ones, which was proven in the comparative study carried out with the Astropol Ivoclar® and Soflex 3M® systems. which obtained the best results, coinciding with the present study, where Ivoclar® showed the most appropriate values as a polishing system compared to the other polishing brands for composite resin [21][22][23][24]. On the other hand, Panna, et al, measured the roughness of three types of composite resin, which were: GC Sculpt, Filtek Z350 XT and Tetric N Ceram, also polishing them with paste impregnated with diamond particles, noting that the Tetric N Ceram resin obtained the best result in respect of the others due to its composition in its nanofiller, which is smaller, which is why it was decided to use this resin in the present study, concerning the polishing system, a comparative study between the Jiffy Hishine polishing systems of Ultradent Vs Soflex 3M® and Optra Pol Astrobrush of Ivoclar® confirmed that the Ultradent® system showed the best results in terms of the roughness coefficient [13,25].…”

Development and maintenance of surface gloss of dental composites after polishing and brushing: Review of the literature

“…Forty‐six articles were included to address the first objective of the study to determine the manner in which filler particle size, composition, shape and distribution affect the capacity to obtain high gloss/smoothness on different direct composite formulations, as well as the effect of finishing/polishing methods on these materials, and these are summarized in Table 2 7–52 . The names of the composites studied, the finishers/polishers used, and the ranges of surface roughness (Ra/Sa) and/or gloss (GU; 60°) reported is presented, along with the main conclusions of each study.…”

“…Many studies compared the polishing effectiveness of the two most common polishing materials, aluminum oxide and diamond particle polishers, each pointing out the advantages and disadvantages of each. 9,13,14,17,19,28,37,38,40,44,49,52 When using polishers that contain large particle sizes of aluminum oxide, such as Enhance (40 μm), Sof-Lex coarse discs (55 μm), and OneGloss (85 μm), care should be taken to avoid scratches and dislodged filler particles in some microhybrid and hybrid resin composites. 13,16 There appears to be no such issue for a nanofill composite when PoGo was used.…”