The evaluation of surface roughness and polishing time between polishing systems

Article information

Restor Dent Endod. 2011;36(2):119-124

Publication date (electronic) : 2011 March 31

doi : https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2011.36.2.119

Ye-Mi Kim, DDS, MS ¹, Su-Jung Shin, DDS, MS ², Min-Ju Song, DDS, MS ², Jeong-Won Park, DDS, PhD ²

¹Department of Dentistry, Ewha Woman's University Mokdong Hospital, Seoul, Korea.

²Department of Conservative Dentistry, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Dentistry, Seoul, Korea.

Correspondence to Jeong-Won Park, DDS, PhD. Associate Professor, Department of Conservative Dentistry, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Dentistry, 146-92 Dogok-dong Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Korea 135-720. TEL, +82-2-2019-1350; FAX, +82-2-3463-4052; pjw@yuhs.ac

Received 2011 January 19; Revised 2011 February 22; Accepted 2011 February 23.

Abstract

Objectives

The purpose of this experiment was to evaluate four different polishing systems of their polishability and polishing time.

Materials and Methods

4 mm diameter and 2 mm thickness Teflon mold was made. Z-250 (3M ESPE) hybrid composite resin was slightly overfilled and pressed with slide glass and cured with Optilux 501 for 40 sec each side. Then the surface roughness (glass pressed: control group) was measured with profilometer. One surface of the specimen was roughened by #320 grit sand paper and polished with one of the following polishing systems; Sof-Lex (3M ESPE), Jiffy (Ultradent), Enhance (Dentsply/Caulk), or Pogo (Dentsply/Caulk). The surface roughness and the total polishing time were measured. The results were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Duncan's multiple range test.

Results

The surface roughness was lowest in Pogo, and highest in Sof-Lex. Polishing times were shortest with Pogo, and followed by the Sof-Lex, Enhance and Jiffy.

Conclusions

One-step polishing system (Pogo) is very effective to get the smooth surface in a short time, therefore it can be recommended for final polishing system of the restoration.

Keywords: Dental composite; One-step polishing; Polishing; Surface roughness

References

1. Yap AU, Yap SH, Teo CK, Ng JJ. Finishing/polishing of composite and compomer restoratives: effectiveness of one-step systems. Oper Dent 2004. 29275–279.

2. Aykent F, Yondem I, Ozyesil AG, Gunal SK, Avunduk MC, Ozkan S. Effect of different finishing techniques for restorative materials on surface roughness and bacterial adhesion. J Prosthet Dent 2010. 103221–227.

3. Bollen CM, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature. Dent Mater 1997. 13258–269.

4. Choi MS, Lee YK, Lim BS, Rhee SH, Yang HC. Changes in surface characteristics of dental resin composites after polishing. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2005. 16347–353.

5. Neme AL, Frazier KB, Roeder LB, Debner TL. Effect of prophylactic polishing protocols on the surface roughness of esthetic restorative materials. Oper Dent 2002. 2750–58.

6. Stoddard JW, Johnson GH. An evaluation of polishing agents for composite resins. J Prosthet Dent 1991. 65491–495.

7. Chung KH. Effects of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface texture of resin composites. Dent Mater 1994. 10325–330.

8. Korkmaz Y, Ozel E, Attar N, Aksoy G. The influence of one-step polishing systems on the surface roughness and microhardness of nanocomposites. Oper Dent 2008. 3344–50.

9. Chen MH. Update on dental nanocomposites. J Dent Res 2010. 89549–560.

10. Türkün LS, Türkün M. The effect of one-step polishing system on the surface roughness of three esthetic resin composite materials. Oper Dent 2004. 29203–211.

11. Lee JY, Shin DH. Surface roughness of universal composites after polishing procedures. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 2003. 28369–377.

12. van Noort R, Davis LG. The surface finish of composite resin restorative materials. Br Dent J 1984. 157360–364.

13. Da Costa J, Ferracane J, Paravina RD, Mazur RF, Roeder L. The effect of different polishing systems on surface roughness and gloss of various resin composites. J Esthet Restor Dent 2007. 19214–224. discussion 225-216.

14. Quirynen M, Bollen CM, Papaioannou W, Van Eldere J, van Steenberghe D. The influence of titanium abutment surface roughness on plaque accumulation and gingivitis: short-term observations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996. 11169–178.

15. Jones CS, Billington RW, Pearson GJ. The in vivo perception of roughness of restorations. Br Dent J 2004. 19642–45. discussion 31.

16. Fruits TJ, Miranda FJ, Coury TL. Effects of equivalent abrasive grit sizes utilizing differing polishing motions on selected restorative materials. Quintessence Int 1996. 27279–285.

17. St-Georges AJ, Bolla M, Fortin D, Muller-Bolla M, Thompson JY, Stamatiades PJ. Surface finish produced on three resin composites by new polishing systems. Oper Dent 2005. 30593–597.

18. Almeida GS, Poskus LT, Guimaräes JG, da Silva EM. The effect of mouthrinses on salivary sorption, solubility and surface degradation of a nanofilled and a hybrid resin composite. Oper Dent 2010. 35105–111.

19. Heintze SD, Forjanic M, Ohmiti K, Rousson V. Surface deterioration of dental materials after simulated tooth-brushing in relation to brushing time and load. Dent Mater 2010. 26306–319.

20. Khalichi P, Singh J, Cvitkovitch DG, Santerre JP. The influence of triethylene glycol derived from dental composite resins on the regulation of Streptococcus mutans gene expression. Biomaterials 2009. 30452–459.

21. Senawongse P, Pongprueksa P. Surface roughness of nanofill and nanohybrid resin composites after polishing and brushing. J Esthet Restor Dent 2007. 19265–273. discussion 274-275.