The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 8 , ISSUE 2 ( February, 2007 ) > List of Articles


The Effect of Different Finishing and Polishing Systems on the Surface Roughness of Different Composite Restorative Materials

Hacer Deniz Arisu, Mine Betül Üçtaşli, Hüma Ömürlü, Evrim Eligüzeloğlu, Suat Özcan, Gülfem Ergun

Citation Information : Arisu HD, Üçtaşli MB, Ömürlü H, Eligüzeloğlu E, Özcan S, Ergun G. The Effect of Different Finishing and Polishing Systems on the Surface Roughness of Different Composite Restorative Materials. J Contemp Dent Pract 2007; 8 (2):89-96.

DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-8-2-89

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 01-02-2007

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2007; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.



The purpose of this in vitro study was to examine the effect of two different finishing systems on the surface roughness of different types of composite restorative materials.

Methods and Materials

Thirty specimens, 8 mm in diameter and 3 mm in depth, were prepared using a microfill composite (Clearfil ST, Kuraray Co. Ltd., Osaka, Japan), a hybrid composite (Clearfil AP-X, Kuraray Co. Ltd., Osaka, Japan), and a packable composite (Clearfil Photo Posterior, Kuraray Co. Ltd., Osaka, Japan) cured against a Mylar matrix strip to create a baseline surface. The average surface roughness was measured using a surface profilometer (Surftest 211, Mitutoyo, Japan) in five different positions on each sample before and after finishing with one of the two finishing systems [Sof-Lex discs (3M) and Po-Go (Dentsply)]. The obtained data were analyzed by two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) at a p=0.05 significance level.


There were statistically significant differences in the average surface roughness (Ra, ìm) between the Mylar matrix strip, Sof-Lex discs, and Po-Go discs (p<0.05). For all tested materials, the Mylar matrix strip provided smoother surfaces than both of the finishing systems (p<0.05). When the finishing discs were compared, Sof-Lex discs produced a smoother surface than Po-Go discs for all tested materials (p<0.05).


The Mylar matrix strip provided a smoother surface than Sof-Lex and Po-Go discs. Furthermore, Sof-Lex discs produced smoother surfaces than Po-Go discs. Sof-Lex and Po-Go systems produced clinically acceptable surface roughness for microfill, hybrid, and packable composite resin materials. The effect of finishing and polishing systems on surface roughness was dependent on both the system and the composite resin restorative material.


Üçtaşli MB, Arisu HD, Ömürlü H, Eligüzeloğlu E, Özcan S, Ergun G. The Effect of Different Finishing and Polishing Systems on the Surface Roughness of Different Composite Restorative Materials. J Contemp Dent Pract 2007 February;(8)2:089-096.

PDF Share
  1. Surface roughness of finished composite resins J Prosthet Dent. 1992;68:742-749.
  2. Three composite finishing systems: a multisite in vitro evaluation. J Esthet Dent. 1992;4:181-185.
  3. Quantitative analysis of six composite polishing techniques on a hybrid composite material. J Esthet Dent. 1992;4:30-32.
  4. The art and science of abrasive finishing and polishing in restorative dentistry. Dent Clin North Am. 1998;42:613-627.
  5. Effects of various finishing methods on staining and accumulation of Streptococcus mutans HS-6 on composite resins. Dent Mater. 1985;1:225-227.
  6. An evaluation of finishing instruments for an anterior and posterior composite. J Prosthet Dent. 1988;60:154-158.
  7. Surface roughness of microfilled composites. J Am Dent Assoc. 1981;102:858-862.
  8. Finishing composites restorative materials. J Oral Rehabil. 1990;17:79-87.
  9. Resin composite polishing-Filling the gap. Quintessence Int. 1999;30:490-495.
  10. Finishing of composites and laminates. Dent Clin North Am. 1989;33:305-318.
  11. An evaluation of polishing agents for composite resins. J Prosthet Dent. 1991;65:491-495.
  12. Contouring, finishing and polishing Class5 restorative materials. Oper Dent. 1997;22:30-36.
  13. Effects of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface texture of resin composites. Dent Mater. 1994;10:325-330.
  14. The effect of three polishing systems on the surface roughness of four hybrid composites: a profilometric and scanning electron microscopy study. J Prosthet Dent. 1996;76:34-38.
  15. Effect of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface roughness of packable composites. Oper Dent. 2000;25:534-543.
  16. A characterization of firstgeneration flowable composites. J Am Dent Assoc. 1998;129:567-577.
  17. The physical properties of packable and conventional posterior resin-based composites: A comparision. J Am Dent Assoc. 2000;131:1610-1615.
  18. Effectiveness of polymerization in composite restoratives claiming bulk placement: Impact of cavity depth and exposure time. Oper Dent. 2000; 25:113-120.
  19. Polymerization contraction stress in light-cured packable composite resins. Dent Mater. 2001;17:292-297.
  20. Influence of a composite restoration on the gingiva. J Prosthet Dent. 1972;28:402-404.
  21. Plaque accumulation on composite surfaces after various finishing procedures. J Am Dent Assoc. 1975;91:101-106.
  22. The ability of foods to stain two composite resins. J Prosthet Dent. 1980;43:542-545.
  23. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: A rewiew of the literature. Dent Mater. 1997;13:258-269.
  24. New finishing instruments for composite resins. J Am Dent Assoc 1983;107:575-580.
  25. The effect of sul on perniseveness of Plkc in strain B of Escherichia coli. Can J Genet Cytol. 1974;16:777-782.
  26. Surface characteristics of tooth-colored restoratives polished utilizing different polishing systems. Oper Dent. 1997;22:260-265.
  27. Surface roughness of flowable and packable composite resin materials after finishing with abrasive discs. J Oral Rehabil. 2004;31:1197-1202.
  28. Am J Dent. 2002;15:193-197.
  29. Influence of polishing duration on surface roughness of resin composites. J Oral Sci. 2005;47:21-25.
  30. Surface geometry of three packable and one hybrid composite after polishing. Oper Dent. 2003;28:816-824.
  31. Surface roughness of composites and hybrid ionomers. Oper Dent. 1996;21:53-58.
  32. Comparative evaluation of polishing systems on the surfaces of three aesthetic materials. J Oral Rehabil. 1997;24:888-894.
  33. Analysis of surface roughness of glass-ionomer cements and compomer. J Oral Rehabil. 2003;30:714-719.
  34. Effect of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface roughness of new tooth colored restoratives. J Oral Rehabil. 2003;30:218-224.
  35. Abrasive wear of resin composites as related to finishing and polishing procedures. Dent Mater. 2005;21:641-648.
  36. Textural characterization of finished and polished composites over time of intraoral exposure. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2006;76:381-388.
  37. Surface roughness of various packable composite resins. Oper Dent. 2002; 27: 243-247.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.