Isfahan University of Medical Sciences

Science Communicator Platform

Stay connected! Follow us on X network (Twitter):
Share this content! On (X network) By
Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Four Composite Polishing Systems: An in Vitro Study Publisher



Atash R1, 2 ; Fathi A3 ; Salehi H4 ; Abedian Y5 ; Bottenberg P2, 5 ; Baghaei K6
Authors
Show Affiliations
Authors Affiliations
  1. 1. Department of Dental Prosthodontics, Universite Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
  2. 2. Department of Dental Prosthodontics, Oral Health School, Universite Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
  3. 3. Department of Dental Prosthodontics, Dental Materials Research Center, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
  4. 4. Private Practice, Isfahan, Iran
  5. 5. Department of Dentistry, Universite Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
  6. 6. Department of Dental Prosthodontics, Dental Student Research Committee, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Source: International Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry Published:2024


Abstract

A b s t r A c t Purpose: To evaluate the surface roughness of six composites polished with four different polishing systems. Materials and methods: Cylindrical resin specimens were prepared for each different composite group of nanohybrid (Clearfil Majestic Esthetic®, G-aenial A’CHORD®, and Simplishade®) and microhybrid (Amaris®, Herculite®, and APX®), resulting in a total of ninety-six resin cylinders. Each cylinder was drilled to create five wells of 3 mm diameter and 2 mm depth. Each composite group size was 80 and was divided into four subgroups. The first subgroup was polished with the Sof Lex® system, the second subgroup with the Diapol Twist® system, the third subgroup with the Diacomp Plus® system, and the fourth subgroup with the Identoflex Ceramic Polish® system. Half of the samples from each subgroup (n = 10) would undergo an additional polishing step using a diamond paste. The results were analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s test. Results: Amaris® composite had significantly higher roughness than the other composites, both with and without polishing paste (PP) (p< 0.05). There was no significant difference in roughness (p = 0.660) for both nanohybrid and microhybrid composites, indicating that their average roughness values were similar. Both types of composite and the finishing/polishing system were significant (p < 0.001) factors influencing roughness. Conclusion: Diamond particle polishers yield better polishing results on composites than aluminum oxide (Al2O3) particle polishers. There is no significant difference in roughness between micro- and nanohybrid composites. Therefore, clinicians should focus on polishing systems instead of composite types. The use of PP slightly improves surface roughness. © 2024 Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd. All rights reserved.