Effect of finishing and polishing procedures on surface roughness, gloss and color of resin-based composites.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effects of different finishing and polishing procedures on surface roughness, gloss and color of five resin composites: two experimental microhybrid composites - FZ-Dentin (FZD) and FZ-Enamel (FZE), one commercial microhybrid composite - Esthet-X (EX), and two microfilled composites - Heliomolar (HM) and Renamel Microfill (RM).


METHODS
Surface roughness, gloss and color of the disc-shaped specimens (10 mm in diameter and 2-mm thick) were measured as Mylar (baseline), 16-fluted carbide bur and polishing were completed. Sixteen specimens of each composite were randomized to four groups of four. After finishing with a 16-fluted finishing bur, each group was polished by a different system: 1. Astropol (A), 2. Sof-lex disc (S), 3. Po-Go (P), 4. Enhance (E). Average surface roughness (Ra) was measured with a profilometer. Gloss measurements were performed using small-area glossmeter, while color coordinate values were recorded using a spectrophotometer. A deltaE*ab< or =1 was considered to be the limit of perceptibility.


RESULTS
The order of surface roughness ranked according to polishing system (for all five composites together) was: P < S < E < A. The order of surface roughness ranked according to composites was: RM < FZD < FZ < HM < EX. The order of gloss ranked according to polishing system (for all five composites together) was: P > E > A > S. The order of gloss values for the polished composites (for each of four polishing systems) was: RM > FZD > FZE > HM > EX. Fisher's PLSD intervals at the 0.05 level of significance for comparisons of means of surface roughness among five composites and four polishing systems were 0.01 and 0.01 microm, respectively. Fisher's PLSD intervals at the 0.05 level of significance for comparisons of means of gloss among five composites and four polishing systems were 6 and 5 GU, respectively. Color differences (deltaE*ab) among five composites and four polishing methods were found to range from 0.2 to 1.1.
Paravina
Rade D
RD
Houston Biomaterials Research Center, Department of Restorative Dentistry and Biomaterials, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston Dental Branch, 6516 M.D. Anderson Boulevard, Houston, TX 77030-3402, USA. rparavina@uth.tmc.edu
Roeder
Leslie
L
Lu
Huan
H
Vogel
Karin
K
Powers
John M
JM
D000180:Acrylic Resins / Q000737:chemistry; D000537:Aluminum Oxide / Q000737:chemistry; D002244:Carbon / Q000737:chemistry; D003116:Color; D003188:Composite Resins / Q000737:chemistry*; D003775:Dental Polishing / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods*; D018130:Diamond / Q000737:chemistry; D006801:Humans; D008422:Materials Testing; D055095:Optics and Photonics; D011093:Polyethylene Terephthalates / Q000737:chemistry; D011109:Polymethacrylic Acids / Q000737:chemistry; D011140:Polyurethanes / Q000737:chemistry; D013053:Spectrophotometry; D013499:Surface Properties
D000180:Acrylic Resins; C029012:Composite Dental Resin; D003188:Composite Resins; C466112:Esthet-X; C513708:Heliomolar; D011093:Polyethylene Terephthalates; D011109:Polymethacrylic Acids; D011140:Polyurethanes; C444445:renamel microfill; C025539:Lavsan; D002244:Carbon; D018130:Diamond; D000537:Aluminum Oxide