Effect of Polishing Systems on Surface Roughness of Universal Resin Composites
SUMMARY
Rationale:
Polishing of resin composites ensures optimal esthetics and longevity. Effective polishing techniques for conventional multi-shade resin composites are well documented. However, less is known regarding acceptable polishing for newer single-shade universal resin composites.
Objective:
This study compared the surface roughness of five universal resin composites (Omnichroma, Neo Spectra, Charisma Diamond One, One Shade) and one conventional multi-shade resin composite (Palfique Asteria) following the use of three polishing systems (one-step, Enhance PoGo; two-step, EVE Diacomp Plus Twist; three-step, Sof-Lex) and Mylar strip (without polishing).
Methods:
A total of 240 specimens were prepared (n=40 for each resin composite). The specimens were grouped into four subgroups (n=10) based on the polishing system applied. The surface roughness of all specimens was evaluated using a non-contact three-dimensional optical profilometer. One randomly selected specimen from each subgroup underwent scanning electron microscope examination.
Results:
Surface roughness was significantly affected by the resin composite type and the polishing system used (p<0.05). The study groups were ranked by surface roughness, from lowest to highest, across all tested materials as follows: Mylar strip < Enhance PoGo < Sof-Lex < EVE Diacomp. The surface roughness values of the universal resin composites were comparable to the multi-shade nanofilled resin composite in all polishing systems.
Mean (± standard deviation) surface roughness (Sa) comparing the polishing systems for each resin composite. The horizontal dotted line represents the surface roughness threshold of 0.2 μm. Different letters indicate statistically significant differences (p<0.05).
Mean (± standard deviation) surface roughness (Sa) comparing the resin composites for each polishing system. The horizontal dotted line represents the surface roughness threshold of 0.2 μm. Different letters indicate statistically significant differences (p<0.05).
3-D surface scans of representative specimens of all treatment groups (Magnification: 50×; image size: 557 × 484 µm; pixel size: 0.698 µm).
SEM photographs of each treatment group at 10,000×. Blue arrow indicates filler dislodgement; Red arrow indicates wear scar.
Contributor Notes