Home > Journals > Minerva Stomatologica > Past Issues > Minerva Stomatologica 2020 August;69(4) > Minerva Stomatologica 2020 August;69(4):207-14

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE   

Minerva Stomatologica 2020 August;69(4):207-14

DOI: 10.23736/S0026-4970.19.04310-3

Copyright © 2019 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Effect of four different finishing and polishing systems on resin composites: roughness surface and gloss retention evaluations

Vincenzo TOSCO 1 , Riccardo MONTERUBBIANESI 1, Giulia ORILISI 1, Maurizio PROCACCINI 1, Simone GRANDINI 2, Angelo PUTIGNANO 1, Giovanna ORSINI 1

1 Department of Clinical Science and Stomatology, Polytechnic University of Marche, Ancona, Italy; 2 Department of Medical Biotechnology, University of Siena, Siena, Italy



BACKGROUND: Finishing and polishing procedures play a crucial role to achieve the best aesthetic result of direct restorations. Many manufacturers to the clinicians offer different finishing and polishing systems. This study aims to examine the behavior of four different finishing and polishing systems on the roughness, gloss and morphology surface of one resin composite.
METHODS: Twelve Filtek XTE Supreme (3M ESPE) discs were prepared and divided into 4 groups (N.=3), depending on the different finishing and polishing systems: Group 1 (GP1) Sof-Lex Extra-Thin XT discs; Group 2 (GP2) Sof-Lex Coarse black disc, multi-fluted bur, Sof-Lex Diamond Polishing System Spirals; Group 3 (GP3) Sof-Lex Coarse black disc, multi-fluted bur, Sof-Lex Diamond Polishing System Spirals, Diamond Twist SCL; Group 4 (GP4) with Sof-Lex Coarse black disc, multi-fluted bur and Occlubrush. The roughness and gloss were evaluated and then samples examined by Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) to analyse the morphology after finishing and polishing.
RESULTS: Regarding the surface roughness, GP1 and GP2 showed similar values for Ra, Ry, Rz and Rq parameters; while GP3 displayed the lowest values in all parameters; GP4 had the highest Ra value. Regarding the gloss, the values decreased as follows: GP3>GP2=GP4>GP1 (P<0.05). Scanning electron micrographs showed the abrasion of the samples with an increase in the surface roughness in GP1 and GP4. One-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s Test was used for statistical evaluations (P<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The roughness and gloss surface of resin composites depend on the finishing and polishing systems used. This study demonstrates that satisfactory gloss outcomes are obtained using a system based on diamond paste.


KEY WORDS: Composite resins; Nanocomposites; Dental polishing

top of page