Abstract
Aim: This study analyzed the effect of different finishing and polishing systems on the surface roughness of a microfilled (Amaris), and a nanofilled resin composite (Clearfil Majesty Esthetic) using Scanning electron microscope (SEM) analysis and surface roughness tester. Materials and Methods: Thirty five specimens of each material were prepared in a plexiglass mold (10 mm in diameter and 2 mm in depth) and cured against a Mylar matrix strip to create a baseline surface. The average surface roughness was measured using a surface profilometer (Mahr Perthometer SP4, Germany) in three different positions on each sample before and after finishing with one of the seven finishing procedures: Procedure 1: Mylar strip (control), Procedure 2: Tungsten carbide burs, Procedure 3: Diamond burs, Procedure 4: Procedure 2 + one-step diamond micropolisher (PoGo), Procedure 5: Procedure 2 + multi-step discs (Super-snap), Procedure 6: Procedure 3 + one-step diamond micropolisher (PoGo), Procedure 7: Procedure 3 + multi-step discs (Supersnap). The obtained data were analyzed using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Duncan test at a p = 0.05 significance level. Results: Nanofilled composite showed significantly lower Ra values than microfilled composite in procedures 4, 6 and 7 (p 0.05). Conclusion: Nanofilled resin composite showed significantly lower Ra values than microfilled resin composite. Regardless of finishing methods, diamond micro-polisher produced smoother surfaces than polishing discs.
Highlights
Recent advancements in the filler technology have improved the mechanical and physical properties of novel resin composites and gave way to restorations that closely resemble the natural tooth structures
Resin composite surfaces finished with a Mylar matrix exhibit a resin rich surface layer, which may abrade in the oral environment, and unpolished, rough, and inorganic filler material can be exposed [9]
This study aimed to evaluate the effect of different finishing and polishing instruments on the surface roughness of a microfilled and a nanofilled composite restorative material
Summary
Recent advancements in the filler technology have improved the mechanical and physical properties of novel resin composites and gave way to restorations that closely resemble the natural tooth structures. Nanofilled restorative materials have the combined advantage of hybrid and microfilled resin composites and have higher surface quality and high strength in anterior and posterior restorations. Surface roughness of resin composites results in excessive plaque accumulation, gingival irritation, increased surface staining, and poor gloss of the restored teeth [4] [5]. Due to the different hardness of the resin matrix and the inorganic filler, homogeneous abrasion and a well finished and polished surface is difficult to obtain [6]. Resin composite surfaces finished with a Mylar matrix exhibit a resin rich surface layer, which may abrade in the oral environment, and unpolished, rough, and inorganic filler material can be exposed [9]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
