Objective: The effects of 3 polishing systems on the surface roughness of 5 composite resins were compared. Methods: Three microhybrid composites (Point 4, P; Esthet-X, E; Vitalescence, V), one microfilled composite (Renamel, R) and one experimental composite (FZ, F) were light cured (6 mm in diameter and 3-mm thick) with a Mylar strip. Fifteen specimens for each composite were fabricated and randomly assigned to three groups. Specimens in each group were finished with carbide bur (16-fluted) and followed by 3 different polishing systems (Astropol, AP; Diagloss, DG and Sof-Lex, SL). Surface roughness (Ra) of the specimens was measured at each step of the finishing process with a surface profilometer (Talysurf Plus). Five tracings at different locations on each specimen were made. Data (n=25) were analyzed by ANOVA. Results: Means and Standard deviations of Ra (µm) were calculated. Tukey-Kramer intervals (p=0.05) for comparisons of means among 3 polishing systems and 5 composites were 0.01 and 0.01 um, respectively. For AP, roughness ranged from 0.10 to 0.15 µm as: R less than F=P=V less than E. For DG, roughness ranged from 0.24 to 0.34 µm as: F less than V less than P=R less than E. For SL, roughness ranged from 0.06 to 0.10 µm as: F=R less than E=P=V. Conclusions: Mylar produced the smoothest surface. The polishing ability of the 3 polishing systems is quite different. SL resulted in lowest roughness, whereas DG produced roughest surface. F had a similar roughness to R that could achieve very smooth surface when polished with SL. The surface roughness of the 3 microhybrid composites was similar when polished with SL.

Back to the Dental Materials: VIII - Others-Non-metallic Program
Back to the IADR/AADR/CADR 80th General Session (March 6-9, 2002)

Top Level Search