1273 Comparison of Surface Gloss and Time by Three Composite Polishing Systems
C. ANDERSON, S. SETHI, G. KUGEL, R. PERRY, and F. GARCIA-GODOY, Tufts University School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, USA

Objective: To evaluate the perceived surface gloss and measure the time to achieve final polish. Methods: Composite surface gloss was rank scored by two independent evaluators, based on: 1. Alpha- smooth and highly shiny, similar to enamel, 2. Bravo A- smooth and satin, highly reflective, 3. Bravo B- smooth and satin, but not highly reflective, 4. Charlie- rough and shiny or satin somewhat reflective, 5. Delta- rough and dull or satin not reflective, 6. Eta- unacceptable polish, rough grained surface. 45 buttons of three composites (N=15/Group) were prepared: Group 1. XRV Herculite (Kerr), Group 2. Filtek Z250 (3M), Group 3. Esthet X (Dentsply), shade A3 total N=135. Each group was polished with: (A). Sof-Lex disc (3M), (B). Astropol (Ivoclar), (C). Prototype, diamond impregnated discs (Dentsply). All groups were polished following manufacturers' protocol. Data was analyzed with ANOVA, Student-Newman-Keuls, Mann-Whitnet U and Kruskal-Wallis. Results:

Sof-Lex
Astropol
Prototype
Group
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
Score
2.9
2.9
3.7
3.8
3.1
3.9
3.7
2.8
3.0
SD
0.38
0.29
0.51
0.64
0.89
0.55
0.47
0.68
0.47
T (s.)
2:41.9
2:47.4
2:34.8
2:44.7
2:46.4
2:30.7
2:19.9
1:53.9
1:42.5
SD
15.2
21.5
18.4
15.9
21.4
19.3
28.4
29.8
12.7

Conclusion: The Prototype system took the least time to achieve a finished polish (P<0.05). Qualitative assessment showed the mean score of Sof-Lex and Prototype systems to polish to the same level (P=0.938), significantly smoother (P<0.0001) than Astropol. Supported by a grant from Dentsply Caulk.

Seq #124 - Surface Roughness and Color of Restorative Materials
3:45 PM-5:00 PM, Thursday, 7 March 2002 San Diego Convention Center Exhibit Hall C

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