Influence of a new polishing system on changes in gloss and surface roughness of resin composites after polishing and brushing

Abstract

This study aimed to compare the change of surface roughness (Ra) and gloss units (GU) of five dental composites (Filtek Z250, Filtek Z350XT, Metafil CX, Ceram X one, and Venus Diamond) polished with three systems (Sof-Lex XT, Enhance/Pogo, and Sof-Lex Diamond) before/after simulated brushings and to determine the amount of time required to achieve maximum gloss. Ninety rectangular specimens (n=18 per composite) were prepared. Six specimens of each composite were assigned to one of the polishing systems. The Ra and GU of each specimen were measured after each polishing step. Five polished specimens per composite were brushed with a toothbrush machine, and the Ra and GU values were determined. Filtek Z350XT exhibited the most stable and lowest Ra during the brushing cycles regardless of polishing system. When using the Sof-Lex Diamond and Enhance/Pogo systems, the highest gloss and the smoothest surfaces were achieved after polishing and brushing.

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

“…Twenty‐nine articles were included to address the second aim of the study that focused on the effect of toothbrush abrasion on the maintenance of high gloss/smoothness of different composite formulations and these are summarized in Table 3 53–81 . A more detailed table containing all the specific Ra/Sa and GU data for each material/polisher combination, for before and after toothbrush abrasion, is presented in Supplemental Table 2.…”

“…In general, resin composites with finely‐sized fillers are more wear resistant compared to those with larger fillers 86–90 . In this literature review, only five studies out of 24 showed composites with larger particle sizes to have a greater increase in roughness after toothbrushing 58,74,75,77,81 . Valente 2013 81 and Salgado 2013 75 used a series of experimental resin composites with systematically varied filler sizes to assess the effect of filler size on Ra.…”

Effect of post-irradiation polymerization on selected mechanical properties of six direct resins

“…In the present study, resilience was calculated using the data provided from flexural testing. The collected data showed that ceram.X Universal presented the lowest modulus of resilience among the groups for all evaluated time points which could be attributed to the type of filler and monomer present on the material [35][36][37] . Furthermore, compared to the other groups Dyract eXtra presented a lower resilience modulus notably in the first 24 h. TPH Spectra HT LV and Spectrum TPH3 showed consistent modulus of resilience after 1 h, 24 h, 1 week and 1 month.…”

“…In addition to non-agglomerated barium glass, ceram.X Universal also contains pre-polymerized fillers, which Kim et al 25) suggest may be more susceptible for lower flexural strength. Sang et al 35) discussed that the filler content of ceram.X Universal may be more susceptible to particle loss and wear while Turssi et al 36) noted with ceram.X Universal that some of its nanosized filler particles might not provide preferential load support and be more susceptible to wear and surface volume loss. Furthermore, Bagheri et al 37) noted ceram.X Universal's subsurface degradation due to water absorption.…”

“…The direct restorative materials evaluated in this study are listed in Table 1 [31][32][33][34][35] . Materials were specifically chosen from one manufacturer (at time of testing Dentsply/Caulk, York, PA, USA; now Dentsply/Sirona, York, PA, USA) to reduce potential variability due to potential diverse materials and fabrication methods [31][32][33][34][35] between manufacturers.…”