Influence of Polishing Systems on Surface Roughness of Composite Resins: Polishability of Composite Resins

Abstract

SUMMARY Objectives: The objective of this in vitro study was to compare, with a threshold value of 200 nm, the surface roughness obtained when using 12 different polishing systems on four different composite resins (microfill, nanofill, and two nanohybrids). Methods and Materials: A total of 384 convex specimens were made using Durafill VS, Filtek Supreme Ultra, Grandio SO, and Venus Pearl. After sandblasting and finishing with a medium-grit finishing disc, initial surface roughness was measured using a surface roughness tester. Specimens were polished using 12 different polishing systems: Astropol, HiLuster Plus, D♦Fine, Diacomp, ET Illustra, Sof-Lex Wheels, Sof-Lex XT discs, Super-Snap, Enhance/Pogo, Optrapol, OneGloss and ComposiPro Brush (n=8). The final surface roughness was measured, and data were analyzed using two-way analysis of variance. Pairwise comparisons were made using protected Fisher least significant difference. Results: There were statistical differences in the final surface roughness between polishing systems and between composite resins (p<0.05). The highest surface roughness was observed for all composite resins polished with OneGloss and ComposiPro Brush. Enhance/Pogo and Sof-Lex Wheels produced a mean surface roughness greater than the 200-nm threshold on Filtek Supreme Ultra, Grandio SO, and Venus Pearl. Data showed that there was an interaction between the composite resins and the polishing systems. Conclusions: A single polishing system does not perform equally with all composite resins. Except for Optrapol, multi-step polishing systems performed generally better than one-step systems. Excluding Enhance/Pogo, diamond-impregnated polishers led to lower surface roughness. Durafill VS, a microfill composite resin, may be polished more predictably with different polishers.

Surface Geometry of Four Conventional Nanohybrid Resin-Based Composites and Four Regular Viscosity Bulk Fill Resin-Based Composites after Two-Step Polishing Procedure

“…There are many dental finishing and polishing methods for obtaining good surface quality [ 1 , 28 ]. Most studies state that the smoothest surface can be obtained after using a single polishing system with multistep like SuperSnap (Shofu, Inc., Kyoto, Japan) or Sof Lex (3M ESPE) [ 6 , 9 , 10 , 28 , 29 ].…”

“…Finishing and polishing of resin-based composites (RBCs) is a necessary procedure which allows to obtain high-quality and esthetic filling [ 1 – 10 ]. According to Jefferies, this step should consist of three stages: (1) gross contouring of the restoration to obtain the desired anatomy, (2) the reduction and smoothing of the surface roughness and scratches created by finishing instruments in the process of gross reduction and initial polishing, and (3) the process of producing a highly smooth, light-reflective, enamel-like surface through final polishing [ 1 ].…”

“…Roughness of RBC surface depends on type and properties of polishing instrument as well as structure and properties of the composite material and interactions between them [ 2 – 5 , 9 – 11 ]. According to St-Pierre et al, material-dependent factors that affect surface roughness are (1) the resin matrix content and formulation, (2) the filler particle characteristics (type, hardness compared with the abrasiveness of the polishers, size, and shape), (3) the composite resin filler load, (4) the quality of the silane coupling agent, and (4) the degree of conversion after light curing [ 10 ]. Roughness of composite surface is mainly dictated by size, hardness, shape, and quantity of inorganic filler.…”

“…These data are in conflict with several studies which reported that there were no differences in plaque accumulation throughout the roughness (Ra) range of 0.7 − 1.4 μ m [ 16 , 21 ]. Roughness comparative studies of novel composite materials, nanofills, suprananofills, nanohybrid, and microhybrid after one and multistep finishing and polishing procedures, do not clearly determine which material and polishing system brings the best results [ 2 – 10 , 14 , 22 ]. However, they confirm that roughness of composite structure depends on both the polishing system used and composite material structure and composition [ 4 – 6 ].…”

The Effect of Finishing and Polishing Sequences on The Surface Roughness of Three Different Nanocomposites and Composite/Enamel and Composite/Cementum Interfaces

“…In the present study, a contact stylus profilometer was used for the evaluation. According to the literature, the clinically acceptable final roughness after polishing should be lower than the critical threshold of 0.2 micrometers, to prevent plaque accumulation [7,18,23].…”