title: Surface roughness of packable composite resins polished with various systems.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The aim of this study was to evaluate the surface roughness of four packable composite resins, SureFil (Dentsply, Petrópolis, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil), Prodigy Condensable (Kerr Co., Orange, CA, USA), Filtek P60 (3M do Brasil, São Paulo, Brazil), and ALERT (Jeneric/Pentron, Inc., Wallingford, CT, USA) and one microhybrid composite resin (Filtek Z250, 3M do Brasil) after polishing with four finishing systems.
  
  
  METHODS
  Twenty specimens were made of each material (5 mm in diameter and 4 mm high) and were analyzed with a profilometer (Perthometer S8P, Perthen, Mahr, Germany) to measure the mean surface roughness (Ra). The specimens were then divided into four groups according to the polishing system: group 1--Sof-Lex (3M do Brasil), group 2--Enhance (Dentsply), group 3--Composite Finishing Kit (KG Sorensen, Barueri, São Paulo, Brazil), and group 4--Jiffy Polisher Cups (Ultradent Products, Inc., South Jordan, UT, USA). The specimens were polished and then evaluated for Ra, and the data were subjected to analysis of variance, analysis of covariance, and Tukey's test (p = .05).
  
  
  RESULTS
  The mean Ra of SureFil polished with Sof-Lex was significantly lower than that of KG points. Prodigy Condensable polished with Enhance showed a significantly less rough surface than when polished with Sof-Lex. Filtek P60 did not exhibit a significant difference with the various polishing systems. For ALERT the lowest mean Ra was obtained with Sof-Lex and the highest mean Ra with KG points. Regarding Filtek Z250, polishing with KG and Jiffy points resulted in a significantly lower mean Ra than when polished with Enhance.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Packable composite resins display variable roughness depending on the polishing system used; the Sof-Lex disks and Jiffy points resulted in the best Ra values for the majority of the materials tested.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The Sof-Lex disks and the Jiffy points produced the smoothest surfaces for the tested resin composites. As a result, they should be considered for clinical use as preferred polishing systems for these resin composites.
authors.affiliation: Restorative Dentistry, UNESP School of Dentistry, São José dos Campos, São Paulo, Brazil. alebuhler@iconet.com.br
authors.forename: Alessandra Bühler
authors.initials: AB
authors.lastname: Borges
authors.forename: Ana Lucia
authors.initials: AL
authors.lastname: Marsilio
authors.forename: Clóvis
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Pagani
authors.forename: José Roberto
authors.initials: JR
authors.lastname: Rodrigues
mesh_terms: D000704:Analysis of Variance; D003188:Composite Resins / Q000737:chemistry*; D003775:Dental Polishing / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods*; D003793:Dental Restoration, Permanent / Q000379:methods; D007091:Image Processing, Computer-Assisted; D008422:Materials Testing; D013499:Surface Properties
chemical_list: D003188:Composite Resins; C403464:SureFil packable composite