The effect of different polishing systems on surface roughness and gloss of various resin composites

Juliana da Costa, Jack Ferracane, Rade D. Paravina, Rui Fernando Mazur, Leslie Roeder

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

64 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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 ≤ 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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)214-224
Number of pages11
JournalJournal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry
Volume19
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 2007

Fingerprint

Composite Resins
Analysis of Variance
Durafill
Esthet-X
In Vitro Techniques

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

The effect of different polishing systems on surface roughness and gloss of various resin composites. / da Costa, Juliana; Ferracane, Jack; Paravina, Rade D.; Mazur, Rui Fernando; Roeder, Leslie.

In: Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry, Vol. 19, No. 4, 08.2007, p. 214-224.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{504b15b31bae477d8bdac62c1b7591cb,
title = "The effect of different polishing systems on surface roughness and gloss of various resin composites",
abstract = "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 ≤ 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.",
author = "{da Costa}, Juliana and Jack Ferracane and Paravina, {Rade D.} and Mazur, {Rui Fernando} and Leslie Roeder",
year = "2007",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1111/j.1708-8240.2007.00104.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "19",
pages = "214--224",
journal = "Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry",
issn = "1496-4155",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The effect of different polishing systems on surface roughness and gloss of various resin composites

AU - da Costa, Juliana

AU - Ferracane, Jack

AU - Paravina, Rade D.

AU - Mazur, Rui Fernando

AU - Roeder, Leslie

PY - 2007/8

Y1 - 2007/8

N2 - 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 ≤ 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.

AB - 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 ≤ 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34547209251&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34547209251&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2007.00104.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2007.00104.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 17635330

AN - SCOPUS:34547209251

VL - 19

SP - 214

EP - 224

JO - Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry

JF - Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry

SN - 1496-4155

IS - 4

ER -