PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the surface finish and gloss of five direct resin composites polished with six polishing systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and fifty disk-shaped composite specimens (D=10.0 mm, 2-mm-thick, N=30 per material) were made. One side of each specimen was finished with a 16-fluted carbide finishing bur and then polished. Five specimens of each resin composite were randomly assigned to one of the six polishing systems. The surface roughness and gloss were measured with a surface profilometer and a glossmeter. The results were analyzed by two-way analysis of variance and Tukey's t-test (p<or= 0.05). RESULTS: There was no significant interaction between the composite and the polishing systems for surface roughness (p=0.059). The order of surface roughness ranked according to composite was: Durafill < Esthet-X < Supreme < Z250 < Z100; and the ranking for the polishing system was: Pogo < Sof-Lex < Diacomp/Enamelize < Diacomp < ComposiPro brush < Jiffy. There was interaction of gloss values between the composites and the polishing systems (p < 0.001). The highest gloss value was recorded for Supreme + Pogo; the lowest was recorded for Z100 + Jiffy. Pogo showed the highest gloss values for all composites. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The nanofill (Supreme) and minifill (Esthet-X) composites presented a surface roughness comparable to a microfill (Durafill), independent of the polishing system used, and a gloss comparable to a microfill, when polished with a one-step system (Pogo). As compared with the multiple-step systems, the smoothest surfaces and the highest gloss values were achieved using the one-step system (Pogo) for all the evaluated composites.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the surface finish and gloss of five direct resin composites polished with six polishing systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and fifty disk-shaped composite specimens (D=10.0 mm, 2-mm-thick, N=30 per material) were made. One side of each specimen was finished with a 16-fluted carbide finishing bur and then polished. Five specimens of each resin composite were randomly assigned to one of the six polishing systems. The surface roughness and gloss were measured with a surface profilometer and a glossmeter. The results were analyzed by two-way analysis of variance and Tukey's t-test (p<or= 0.05). RESULTS: There was no significant interaction between the composite and the polishing systems for surface roughness (p=0.059). The order of surface roughness ranked according to composite was: Durafill < Esthet-X < Supreme < Z250 < Z100; and the ranking for the polishing system was: Pogo < Sof-Lex < Diacomp/Enamelize < Diacomp < ComposiPro brush < Jiffy. There was interaction of gloss values between the composites and the polishing systems (p < 0.001). The highest gloss value was recorded for Supreme + Pogo; the lowest was recorded for Z100 + Jiffy. Pogo showed the highest gloss values for all composites. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The nanofill (Supreme) and minifill (Esthet-X) composites presented a surface roughness comparable to a microfill (Durafill), independent of the polishing system used, and a gloss comparable to a microfill, when polished with a one-step system (Pogo). As compared with the multiple-step systems, the smoothest surfaces and the highest gloss values were achieved using the one-step system (Pogo) for all the evaluated composites.
Authors: Mariana A Arocha; Juan R Mayoral; Dorien Lefever; Montserrat Mercade; Juan Basilio; Miguel Roig Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2012-09-20 Impact factor: 3.573