COMPARATIVE STUDY REGARDING THE EFFECT OF DIFFERENT FINISHING AND
POLISHING SYSTEMS ON A BULK-FILL COMPOSITE RESIN SURFACE
the celluloid matrix has a higher organic content than
the underlying layer [16-18] and the removal of this
layer by finishing and polishing procedure will increase
the surface resistance of the material [19,20]. However,
the anatomical contour of the restoration is rarely
achieved only by the use of the celluloid matrix [21,22],
so most of the time it is necessary to use the finishing
and polishing instruments to remove the material in
excess and to obtain the shape and the appearance of
the restoration closer to the natural tooth.
In order to be effective, a finishing system has to contain
abrasive particles with higher hardness than the inorganic
filler particles of the composite. Otherwise, during the
finishing and polishing steps, the resin-rich superficial layer
(which has poor physical and mechanical properties) will
be removed, and the filler particles will remain into bold
relief on the surface layer [23,24]. Composites containing
small filler particles will provide after finishing and
polishing a smoother surface than the ones containing
larger-sized filler particles [25,26].
It was demonstrated that a composite surface
roughness higher than 0.2 μm will prone the composite
surface to bacterial plaque retention, increased
risk for secondary caries onset and for periodontal
inflammation, and will affect the aesthetic aspect and
the longevity of the restoration [27]. Some studies
have shown that many of the finishing and polishing
systems on the market lead to a smooth surface, with
mean Ra values varying from 0.02 μm to 0.56 μm [28,
29]. In our study using tungsten carbide burs with the
one-step polishing system Occlubrush and tungsten
carbide burs with the two-step Sof-Lex finishing system
determined the Ra mean value to slightly increase over
0.2 μm. When using tungsten carbide burs and the
multi-step Super Snap system, the mean Ra value was
lower than 0.2 μm. We can assume that the effect of the
finishing and polishing protocol used in this study had
a notable clinical significance.
The complex surface structure of a composite
resin cannot be fully characterized only by using
profilometry. A clear prediction of clinical performance
of a restorative material can be made by correlating
the roughness parameters calculated by the profile
geometry with the morphological surface analysis by
scanning electron microscopy, which allows assessing
the destructive potential of different finishing and
polishing systems [30,31]. Since the quality of the final
restoration surface is influenced by the type of the
instrument used for finishing and polishing and also
by the material structure, choosing the most suitable
instrument for a specific material seems to become of
great clinical importance.
5. Conclusion
1. For Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior (3M ESPE), the smoothest
surface was obtained when the material was placed in
direct contact with the celluloid matrix.
2. The use of tungsten carbide burs followed by multi-
step Super Snap finishing system determined a lower
surface roughness than with the other polishing systems.
3. Finishing with tungsten carbide burs and two-steps
Sof-Lex polishing system and one-step polishing system
Occlubrush determined, significantly higher surface
96
roughness than t multi-step Super Snap system.
4. The surface characteristics of the studied composite
resin were influenced by the type of finishing and
polishing system used.
Author contributions
Equal contribution to the paper.
Acknowledgement
Not applicable. The study was self-funded.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Raj R, Gupta R. In vitro evaluation of the effect of two finishing and
polishing systems on four esthetic restorative materials. J Conserv
Dent. 2013;16(6):564-567. doi: 10.4103/0972-0707.120946.
[Full text links] [Free PMC Article] [PubMed] Google Scholar(20)
Scopus(10)
Yap AU, Yap SH, Teo CK, Ng JJ. Comparison of surface finish of new
aesthetic restorative materials. Oper Dent. 2004;29(1):100-104.
[PubMed] Google Scholar(110) Scopus(47)
Stoleriu S, Iovan G, Pancu G, Nica I, Andrian S. Study concerning
the influence of the finishing and polishing systems on the
surface state of various types of composite resins. Rom J Oral
Rehab. 2013;5(3):78-83.
Google Scholar(2)
Erdemir U, Sancakli HS, Yildiz E. The effect of one-step and
multi-step polishing systems on the surface roughness
and microhardness of novel resin composites. Eur J Dent.
2012;6(2):198-205.
[Free PMC Article] [PubMed] Goo gle Scholar(41) Scopus(17)
Nica I, Stoleriu S, Iovan G, Pancu G, Andrian S. Fractal analysis of
some restorative Nano-filled composite materials microstructure.
Stoma Edu J. 2015;2(1):36-43.
Google Scholar(2)
Takanashi E, Kishikawa R, Ikeda M, et al. Influence of abrasive
particle size on surface properties of flowable composites. Dent
Mater J. 2008;27(6):780-786.
[Full text links] [PubMed] Google Scholar(24) Scopus(16)
Yazici AR, Muftu A. Three dimensional surface profile analysis of
different types of flowable restorative resins following different
finishing protocols. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2007;8(5):1-11.
[PubMed] Google Scholar(20) Scopus(9)
Attar N. The effect of finishing and polishing procedures on the
surface roughness of composite resin materials. J Contemp Dent
Pract. 2007;8(1):27-35.
[PubMed] Google Scholar(119) Scopus(51)
Jefferies SR. Abrasive finishing and polishing in restorative
dentistry: a state of art review. Dent Clin North Am.
2007;51(2):379-397, ix. doi: 10.1016/j.cden.2006.12.002
[Full text links] [PubMed] Google Scholar(135) Scopus(51)
Efreifej NS, Oweis YG, Eliades G. The effect of polishing technique
on 3-D surface roughness and gloss of dental restorative resin
composites. Oper Dent. 2013;38(1):9-20.
[Full text links] [PubMed] Google Scholar(26) Scopus(15)
Jung M, Sehr K, Klimek J. Surface texture of four nanofilled and
one hybrid composite after finishing. Oper Dent. 2007;32(1):45-
52. doi: 10.2341/06-9.
[Full text links] [PubMed] Google Scholar(107) Scopus(48)
Yap AU, Mok BY. Surface finish of a new hybrid aesthetic
restorative material. Oper Dent. 2002;27(2):161-166.
[PubMed] Google Scholar(75) Scopus(45)
Sarac D, Sarac YS, Kulunk S, Ural C, Kulunk T. The effect of polishing
techniques on the surface roughness and color change of
composite resins. J Prosthet Dent. 2006;96(1):33-40. doi: 10.1016/j.
prosdent.2006.04.012
[Full text links] [PubMed] Google Scholar(173) Scopus(67)
Uctasli MB, Bala O, Gull A. Surface roughness of flowable and
packable composite resin materials after finishing with abrasive
disc. J Oral Rehabil. 2004;31(12):1197-2002. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
2842.2004.01341.x
[Full text links] [PubMed] Google Scholar(54) Scopus(24)
Endo T, Finger WJ, Kanehira M, Utterodt A, Komatsu M. Surface
texture and roughness of polished nanofill and nanohybrid resin
composites. Dent Mater J. 2010;29(2):213-223.
[Full text links] [PubMed] Google Scholar(82) Scopus(34)
Grădinaru I, Ignat L, Dascălu CG, Soroaga LV, Antohe ME. Studies
regarding the architectural design of various composites and
nanofibres used in dental medicine. Rev Chim.(Bucharest).
2018;69(2):328-331.
Google Scholar(0) Scopus(0)
Stoma Edu J. 2018;5(2): 92-97
http://www.stomaeduj.com