The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 8 , ISSUE 1 ( January, 2007 ) > List of Articles


The Effect of Finishing and Polishing Procedures on the Surface Roughness of Composite Resin Materials

Nuray Attar

Citation Information : Attar N. The Effect of Finishing and Polishing Procedures on the Surface Roughness of Composite Resin Materials. J Contemp Dent Pract 2007; 8 (1):27-35.

DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-8-1-27

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 01-03-2008

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2007; The Author(s).



The aims of this study were to evaluate the effect of various finishing and polishing procedures on the surface roughness of six different composite resin materials (Artemis Enamel, TPH Spectrum, Filtek A–110, Filtek Supreme Enamel, Solitaire 2, and Filtek P–60) as well as to evaluate the effectiveness of the surface sealant application (BisCover) on the surface roughness after finishing and polishing procedures of tested composites.

Methods and Materials

Specimens (n=168) measuring 5 mm in diameter x 2 mm in thickness were fabricated in a plexiglass well covered with a Mylar strip using six composite resins. A control group of seven specimens of each material received no polishing after being cured under the Mylar strip. Twenty-one specimens for each composite were randomly divided among three finishing and polishing groups (n=7). Each group was polished using a different system: Carbide bur/Sof-Lex disc, Carbide bur/Enhance disc with polishing paste, and Carbide bur/Edenta composite finishing kit. The average surface roughness (Ra, ìm) of the control and treated specimens were measured with the Mitutoyo Surftest–402 Surface Roughness tester. After a surface sealant (BisCover) was applied to all treated specimens, according to manufacturer's instructions, the average roughness (Ra) was measured again. Results were statistically analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the post-hoc Scheffe's test at a p<0.05 significance level.


Significant differences were found for the surface roughness (p<0.05) with interaction among composite resins and the finishing systems used (p<0.05). Enhance/Biscover finishing and polishing procedure surface was not significantly different from the Mylar strip surface groups (p>0.05). The Mylar strip group was not significantly different from the Sof-Lex/BisCover and Edenta/BisCover groups. The ranking of mean Ra values by materials was as follows: Filtek Supreme Enamel < Filtek A110 < TPH Spectrum < Artemis <Filtek P–60 < Solitaire 2. The ranking of mean Ra values by polishing systems was as follows: Enhance/BisCover < Mylar Strip < Sof-Lex/BisCover < Edenta/BisCover < Sof-Lex < Enhance < Edenta.


Smoother surfaces were recorded for the Enhance/BisCover and the Mylar strip-formed surface groups. The composite finishing kit Edenta significantly increased the Ra for all tested composites (p<0.05). But after finishing with Edenta, the use of a surface sealant (BisCover) significantly improved the surface smoothness of all tested composites (p<0.05). Use of BisCover surface sealant on anterior and posterior resin composite restorations after finishing and polishing procedures is recommended.


Attar N. The Effect of Finishing and Polishing Procedures on the Surface Roughness of Composite Resin Materials. J Contemp Dent Pract 2007 January;(8)1:027-035.

PDF Share
  1. Update on dental composite restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 1994;125(6):687-701.
  2. The suitability of packable resin-based composites for posterior restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 2001;132(5):639-645.
  3. Fluoride release and uptake capacities of fluoride-releasing restorative materials. Oper Dent 2003;28(4):395-402.
  4. Posterior composite resins: the materials and their clinical performance. J Am Dent Assoc 1995;126(5):663-672.
  5. A report on a new condensable composite resin. Compend Contin Educ Dent 1998;19(3):230-237.
  6. The new posterior resins and a simplified placement technique. J Am Dent Assoc 2000;131(3):375-383.
  7. Microleakage of Class II packable resin composites lined with flowables: an in vitro study. Oper Dent 2002;27(6):600-605.
  8. (2002). Technical product profile St. Paul MN 55144–1000, October:5–8.
  9. The effect of one-step polishing system on the surface roughness of three esthetic resin composite materials. Oper Dent 2004;29(2):203-211.
  10. Placement and finishing, Tooth-colored restoratives principles and techniques, Ninth Edition, BC Decker Inc, 2002:157-181.
  11. Effect of prophylactic polishing protocols on the surface roughness of esthetic restorative materials. Oper Dent 2002;27(1):50-58.
  12. Changes in surface characteristics of dental resin composites after polishing. Mater Sci Mater Med 2005;16(4):347-353.
  13. Three-dimensional optical profilometry analysis of surface states obtained after finishing sequences for three composite resins. Oper Dent 2000;25(4):311-315.
  14. Surface roughness of nanofill and nanohybrid composite resin and ormocer-based tooth-colored restorative materials after several finishing and polishing procedures. J Biomater Appl 2004;19(2):121-134.
  15. Surface roughness of packable composite resins polished with various systems. J Esthet Restor Dent 2004;16(1):42-47.
  16. Effects of various finishing systems on the surface roughness and staining susceptibility of packable composite resins. Dent Mater 2003;19(1):12-18.
  17. Polishing composite resins. J Esthet Dent 1992;4(5):177-179.
  18. A guide to polishing direct composite resin restorations. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2000;21(2):138-144.
  19. The polishability of posterior composites. J Prosthet Dent 1989;61(2):138-146.
  20. Am J Dent 2002;15(3):193-197.
  21. Surface roughness of composite resins after finishing and polishing. Braz Dent J 2003;14(1):37-41.
  22. Finishing/polishing of composite and compomer restoratives: Effectiveness of one-step systems. Oper Dent 2004;29(3):275-279.
  23. surface roughness of flowable and packable composite resin materials after finishing with abrasive discs. J Oral Rehabil 2004;31(12):1197-1202.
  24. Finishing of posterior composite surface: an AFM study. J Dent Res 2001;80:1239 (Abst. no. 312).
  25. An evaluation of different composite resin systems finished with various abrasives. J Am Dent Assoc 1989;119(6):729-732.
  26. Assessing the long-term effect of a surface penetrating sealant. J Am Dent Assoc 1993;124(7):68-72.
  27. Effect of a surface sealant on microleakage of Class V restorations. Am J Dent 1996;9(3):133-136.
  28. Effect of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface roughness of packable composites. Oper Dent 2000;25(6):534-543.
  29. Surface roughness and cutting efficiency of composite finishing instruments. Oper Dent 1997;22(3):98-104.
  30. Analysis of surface roughness of glass-ionomer cements and compomer. J Oral Rehab 2003;30(7):714-719.
  31. Plaque accumulation on composite surfaces after various finishing procedures. J Am Dent Assoc 1975;91(1):101-106.
  32. Effects of various finishing methods on staining and accumulation of streptococcus mutans HS–6 on composite resins. Dent Mater 1985;1(6):225-227.
  33. Effects of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface texture of resin composites. Dent Mater 1994; 10(5):325-330.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.