Abstract
This study compared surface roughness and gloss produced by different finishing/polishing procedures for two resin composites, Clearfil AP-X (AP-X) and Estelite Σ (ES). A total of 70 composite discs (n=35 for each resin composite) were prepared and divided at random into seven finishing/polishing groups (n=5): glass-pressed control; using a super-fine-grit diamond bur (SF); using CompoMaster (CM) after SF-finishing (SF+CM); using White Point (WP) after SF-finishing (SF+WP); using CM after SF+WP-finishing (SF+WP+CM); using Stainbuster (SB) after SF-finishing (SF+SB); and using CM after SF+SB-finishing (SF+SB+CM). After the finishing/polishing procedures, average surface roughness (Ra) and surface gloss (Gs(60°)) of all specimens were assessed with a surface profilometer and specimen gloss meter, respectively. Glass-pressed controls for both AP-X and ES composites showed the best surface finish in terms of both Ra and Gs(60°). SF-finishing produced the roughest surface and led to almost complete loss of gloss. While additional polishing with CM reduced Ra and increased Gs(60°), the additional finishing effect of WP or SB between SF-finishing and CM-polishing was not found for either AP-X or ES.
Highlights
Resin composite restoration currently achieves esthetically pleasing and natural-looking results through the use of nanoparticle-sized small fillers, variations of color, and newly developed restorative techniques such as the layering technique (Peyton PPAD 2002) [1]
The null hypotheses tested in this study were that there is no significant difference in surface texture 1) among the different finishing/polishing procedures, 2) between the two resin composites, and 3) there is no significant interaction between surface roughness and surface gloss
Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed that all of the finishing methods had a significant effect on Ra (F=52.021, p
Summary
Resin composite restoration currently achieves esthetically pleasing and natural-looking results through the use of nanoparticle-sized small fillers, variations of color, and newly developed restorative techniques such as the layering technique (Peyton PPAD 2002) [1]. Finishing and polishing processes, including the removal of excess-filled resin composite, shaping, contouring, and smoothing of the restoration, can affect many aspects of the final restoration, such as surface staining, plaque accumulation, gingival irritation, and wear characteristics of the composite (Murchison Fundamentals of Operative Dentistry 2006) [3] (Shintani DM 1985) [4] (Lu JERD 2005) [5] (Larato JPD 1972) [6]. A wide variety of finishing and polishing instruments are commercially available to the clinician. As initial finishing, it has been advocate the use a fine-grit diamond or multi-fluted tungsten carbide bur to remove the excess-filled composite and shape the anatomical contouring; and silicone-based points and/or abrasive discs for final polish (Jung OD 2003) [7] (Roeder OD 2000) [8] (Barbosa BDJ 2005) [9]. The additional use of an aluminum-oxide abrasive point may be applied for second finishing between first finishing and final polishing
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
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 call
