The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  25 (2024)
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
Related articles

VOLUME 9 , ISSUE 2 ( February, 2008 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Finishing Systems on the Final Surface Roughness of Composites

Richard Koh, Gisele Neiva, Joseph Dennison, Peter Yaman

Citation Information : Koh R, Neiva G, Dennison J, Yaman P. Finishing Systems on the Final Surface Roughness of Composites. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008; 9 (2):138-145.

DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-9-2-138

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 01-07-2009

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2008; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim

This study evaluated differences in surface roughness of a microhybrid (Gradia™ Direct, GC America) and a nanofil (Filtek™ Supreme, 3M™ ESPE™) composite using four polishing systems: PoGo™/Enhance® (DENTSPLY/Caulk), Sof-Lex™ (3MTM ESPE™), Astropol® (Ivoclar Vivadent), and Optidisc™ (KerrHawe).

Methods and Materials

An aluminum mold was used to prepare 2 X 60 composite disks (10 mm X 2 mm). Composite was packed into the mold, placed between two glass slabs, and polymerized for 40 seconds from the top and bottom surfaces. Specimens were finished to a standard rough surface using Moore's disks with six brushing strokes. Specimens were rinsed and stored in artificial saliva in individual plastic bags at 36°C for 24 hours prior to testing. Specimens were randomly assigned to one of the four polishing systems and were polished for 30 seconds (10 seconds per grit) with brushing strokes according to the manufacturer's instructions. Mean surface roughness (Ra) was recorded with a surface-analyzer 24 hours after storage in artificial saliva, both before and after polishing. Means were analyzed using two-way and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey multiple comparison tests at p < 0.05.

Results

There was a statistically significant difference for baseline measures between Filtek™ and Gradia™ (p=0.0338). For Filtek™, Sof-Lex™ provided a significantly smoother surface (Ra=0.80 ± 0.21) than Optidisc™ (Ra=0.93 ± 0.28), Astropol® (Ra=1.15 ± 0.24), and Pogo™/Enhance® (Ra=1.39 ± 0.39). For Gradia, Sof-Lex™ provided a significantly smoother surface (Ra=0.47 ± 0.09) and Astropol® provided a significantly rougher surface (Ra=1.39 ± 0.19) than Pogo™/Enhance® (Ra=1.11 ± 0.20) and Optidisc™ (Ra=1.15 ± 0.18). There was no significant difference in roughness between composites for individual polishing systems (p=0.3991).

Conclusion

Filtek™ specimens were smoother than Gradia™ specimens after baseline roughening. Sof- Lex™ provided the smoothest final surface when used with either composite. Astropol® provided a rough surface for Gradia™ specimens.

Citation

Koh R, Neiva G, Dennison J, Yaman P. Finishing Systems on the Final Surface Roughness of Composites. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008 February;(9)2:138-145.

PDF Share
  1. An application of nanotechnology in advanced dental materials. J Am Dent Assoc 2003;134:1382-90.
  2. Plaque accumulation on composite surfaces after various finishing procedures. J Am Dent Assoc 1975;91(1):101-6.
  3. Surface roughness of microfilled composites. J Am Dent Assoc 1981;102:858-62.
  4. Finishing composite restorative materials. J Oral Rehab 1990;17(1):79-87.
  5. Finishing glass polyalkenoate (glass-ionomer) cements. Brit Dent J 1988;165(11):395-9.
  6. A quantitative study of finishing and polishing techniques for a composite. J Prosthet Dent 1988;59(3):292-7.
  7. Quantitative analysis of six composite polishing techniques on a hybrid composite material. J Esthet Dent 1992;4(Suppl):30-2.
  8. Effects of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface texture of resin composites. Dent Mater 1994;10:325-30.
  9. Finishing and polishing of a hybrid composite and a heat-pressed glass ceramic. Oper Dent 2002;27(2): 175-83.
  10. An evaluation of finishing instruments for an anterior and a posterior composite resin. J Prosthet Dent 1988;60: 154-8.
  11. An evaluation of different composite resin systems finished with various abrasives. J Am Dent Assoc 1989;119(6): 729-32.
  12. Presence or absence of plaque on subgingival restorations. Scand J Dent Res 1975;83(1): 193-201.
  13. The effect of three finishing systems on four esthetic restorative materials. Oper Dent 1998;23: 36-42.
  14. Surface finish produced on resin composites by new polishing systems. Quintessence Int 1999;30(3): 169-73.
  15. An evaluation of polishing agents for composites resins. J Pros Dent 1991;65(4): 491-5.
  16. New finishing instruments for composite resins. J Am Dent Assoc 1983;107: 575-80.
  17. Smoothness of composite restorations polished by various abrasives: a comparison by scanning electron microscopy. J Oper Dent 1979;4: 140-8.
  18. The effect of one-step polishing system on the surface roughness of three esthetic resin composite materials. Oper Dent 2004;29(2): 203-11.
  19. Effects of equivalent abrasive grit sizes utilizing differing polishing motions on selected restorative materials. Quintessence Int 1996;27(4): 279-85.
  20. Am J Dent 2002;15:193-7.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.