AIM: 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. RESULTS: There were statistically significant differences in the average surface roughness (Ra, microm) 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). CONCLUSION: 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.
AIM: 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. RESULTS: There were statistically significant differences in the average surface roughness (Ra, microm) 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). CONCLUSION: 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.
Authors: Hanan A N Soliman; Naglaa Rizk Elkholany; Hamdi H Hamama; Fatma M El-Sharkawy; Salah H Mahmoud; John C Comisi Journal: Eur J Dent Date: 2020-10-27