Comparison of two-step versus four-step composite finishing/polishing disc systems: evaluation of a new two-step composite polishing disc system. The effect of different polishing systems on surface roughness and gloss of various resin composites. Clinical performance of ormocer, nanofilled, and nanoceramic resin composites in Class I and Class II restorations: a three-year evaluation. Two-year clinical evaluation of ormocer, nanohybrid and nanofill composite restorative systems in posterior teeth. The effects of finishing and polishing techniques on surface roughness and color stability of nanocomposites. SURFACE DEGRADATION OF COMPOSITE RESINS BY ACIDIC MEDICINES AND pH-CYCLING Effect of surface roughness on stain resistance of dental resin composites. Surface Roughness of Nanofill and Nanohybrid Composite Resin and Ormocer-based Tooth-colored Restorative Materials after Several Finishing and Polishing Procedures Effect of Bleaching Gels on Surface Roughness of Nanofilled Composite Resins Eighteen-month clinical evaluation of microhybrid, packable and nanofilled resin composites in Class I restorations. The influence of one-step polishing systems on the surface roughness and microhardness of nanocomposites.
OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to evaluate surface finish and gloss of a two-step  composite finishing/polishing ( F/P ) disc system compared with two multistep systems on five composites . METHODS Seventy-five disc-shaped composite specimens ( D=10.0 mm , 2 mm thick , n=15 per composite ) were made of microfill ( Durafill-D ) , nanofill ( Filtek Supreme-FS ) , nanohybrid ( Premise-PR ) , and microhybrids ( Filtek Z250-FZ , Esthet-EX ) . One side of each specimen was initially finished with a carbide bur . Five specimens of each resin composite were r and omly assigned to receive full F/P by each of the disc systems : two-step ( Enhance Flex NST-EF ) and four-step ( Sof-Lex-SL , Super-Snap-SS ) . Surface gloss was measured with a glossmeter and surface roughness was measured with a profilometer . Results were analyzed by two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)/Tukey 's ( α<0.05 ) . RESULTS No difference in gloss was noted among the three F/P systems when used with D and EX ; no difference between SL and EF when used with any composite , except for FS ; and no difference between SL and SS when used with any composite . SL and EF showed similar surface roughness when used on all composites , except for EX . EF and SS showed similar surface roughness on PR . SL and SS showed similar surface roughness values on every composite , except for FZ . CONCLUSIONS EF was capable of providing similar gloss and surface roughness to SL on four composites evaluated but was not able to produce as glossy or as smooth a surface as SS for three of the five composites PURPOSE The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the surface finish and gloss of five direct resin composites polished with six polishing systems . MATERIAL S AND METHODS One hundred and fifty disk-shaped composite specimens ( D=10.0 mm , 2-mm-thick , N=30 per material ) were made . One side of each specimen was finished with a 16-fluted carbide finishing bur and then polished . Five specimens of each resin composite were r and omly assigned to one of the six polishing systems . The surface roughness and gloss were measured with a surface profilometer and a glossmeter . The results were analyzed by two-way analysis of variance and Tukey 's t-test ( p < or= 0.05 ) . RESULTS There was no significant interaction between the composite and the polishing systems for surface roughness ( p=0.059 ) . The order of surface roughness ranked according to composite was : Durafill < Esthet-X < Supreme < Z250 < Z100 ; and the ranking for the polishing system was : Pogo < Sof-Lex < Diacomp/Enamelize < Diacomp < ComposiPro brush < Jiffy . There was interaction of gloss values between the composites and the polishing systems ( p < 0.001 ) . The highest gloss value was recorded for Supreme + Pogo ; the lowest was recorded for Z100 + Jiffy . Pogo showed the highest gloss values for all composites . CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE The nanofill ( Supreme ) and minifill ( Esthet-X ) composites presented a surface roughness comparable to a microfill ( Durafill ) , independent of the polishing system used , and a gloss comparable to a microfill , when polished with a one-step system ( Pogo ) . As compared with the multiple-step systems , the smoothest surfaces and the highest gloss values were achieved using the one-step system ( Pogo ) for all the evaluated composites PURPOSE This prospect i ve long-term clinical trial evaluated and compared the three-year clinical performance of an ormocer , a nanofilled , and a nanoceramic resin composite with that of a microhybrid composite placed in Class I and Class II cavities . METHODS Forty patients , each with four Class I and II restorations under occlusion , were enrolled in this study . A total of 160 restorations were placed , 25 % for each material , as follows : an ormocer-based composite , Admira ; a nanofilled resin composite , Filtek Supreme XT ; a nanoceramic resin composite , Ceram X ; and a microhybrid resin composite , Tetric Ceram . A single operator placed all restorations according to the manufacturers ' instructions . Immediately after placement the restorations were finished/polished . Clinical evaluation was performed at baseline and at yearly intervals after placement by two other independent examiners using modified US Public Health Service ( USPHS ) criteria . The changes in the USPHS parameters during the three-year period were analyzed with the Friedman test . Comparison of the baseline scores with those at the recall visits was made using the Wilcoxon signed rank test . The level of significance was set at p < 0.05 . RESULTS All material s showed only minor changes , and no differences were detected between their performance at baseline and after three years . Only two ormocer , one nanofilled , and one microhybrid restorations in molars failed because of loss of retention . Regarding the clinical performance , there were no statistically significant differences among the material s used ( p>0.05 ) . CONCLUSIONS The ormocer , nanofilled , and nanoceramic composites provided acceptable clinical performance over a three-year period PURPOSE To evaluate and compare the 2-year clinical performance of an ormocer , a nanohybrid , and a nanofill resin composite with that of a microhybrid composite in restorations of small occlusal cavities made in posterior teeth . MATERIAL S AND METHODS Thirty-five patients , each with 4 occlusal restorations under occlusion , were enrolled in this study . A total of 140 restorations  was placed , 25 % for each material : an ormocer-based composite , Admira ; a nanohybrid resin composite , Tetric EvoCeram ; a nanofill resin composite , Filtek Supreme ; and a microhybrid resin composite , Tetric Ceram . Two operators placed all restorations according to the manufacturers ' instructions . One week after placement , the restorations were finished/polished and patients were advised to return for follow-up at 6 months , 1 year , and 2 years . All patients attended the 2-year visit where the clinical performance of all restorations was evaluated . Two independent examiners made all evaluations according to the USPHS modified Ryge criteria immediately after placement of restorations and at subsequent recall visits . The changes in the USPHS parameters during the 2-year period were analyzed with the Friedman test . Comparison of the baseline scores with those at the recall visits was made using the Wilcoxon signed rank test . The level of significance was set at p < 0.05 . RESULTS All material s showed only minor changes , and no differences were detected between their performance at baseline and after 2 years . Only one  ormocer and one  microhybrid composite restoration had failed after 2 years . No failure was detected in nanohybrid and nanofill composite restorations . Regarding the clinical performance , there were no statistically significant differences among the material s used ( p > 0.05 ) . CONCLUSION After 2 years , the ormocer , nanohybrid , and nanofill composites showed acceptable clinical performance similar to that of the microhybrid resin composite OBJECTIVES The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effects of different finishing and polishing techniques on the surface roughness and color stability of nanocomposites . METHODS Two  nanohybrid  ( Gr and io , Aelite Aesthetic Enamel ) , two nanofill ( Filtek Supreme XT Dentin and Translucent ) , and a microhybrid ( Filtek Z250 ) composites were used . Two hundred and eighty disc-shaped specimens were cured under a mylar strip . Seven specimens of each resin composite were r and omly assigned to one of the seven polishing systems . A profilometer was used for assessing surface roughness . ΔE was calculated with a colorimeter at baseline and 48 h after storage in a coffee solution . The results were analysed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey 's HSD test ( α=0.05 ) . Regression analysis was used to examine the correlation between surface roughness and color stability ( α=0.01 ) . RESULTS There was no significant difference in R(a ) values between mylar strips and Sof-Lex polishing discs ( p>0.05 ) . The highest ΔE and R(a ) values were obtained from Gr and io ( p<0.05 ) , and Aelite Aesthetic Enamel had the lowest ΔE values ( p<0.05 ) . The Enhance system showed the lowest color differences among all the finishing systems . The highest ΔE values were found in the composite resin groups under mylar strips and finished with diamond burs ( p<0.05 ) . CONCLUSIONS While the Sof-Lex discs provided the lowest surface roughness , the Enhance Polishing system provided the most stain-resistant groups . Gr and io presented the highest surface roughness and staining susceptibility after storage in coffee solution . Aelite Aesthetic Enamel , which did not include TEGDMA in its composition , showed the least discoloration . CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE The composites with smaller filler size did not necessarily show low surface roughness and discoloration . Staining of composite resins was dependent on monomer structure , as well as surface irregularities This study evaluated the effects of acidic medicines ( Dimetapp ® and Claritin ® ) , under pH-cycling conditions , on the surface degradation of four composite resins ( microhybrid : TPH , Concept , Opallis and Nanofilled : Supreme ) . Thirty disc-shaped specimens ( Ø = 5.0 mm / thickness = 2.0 mm ) of each composite were r and omly assigned to 3 groups ( n = 10 ) : a control and two experimental groups , according to the acidic medicines evaluated . The specimens were finished and polished with aluminum oxide discs , and the surface roughness was measured by using a profilometer . After the specimens were su bmi tted to a pH-cycling regimen and immersion in acidic medicines for 12 days , the surface roughness was measured again . Two specimens for each material and group were analyzed by scanning electron microscopy ( SEM ) before and after pH-cycling . Data were analyzed by the Student's-t test , ANOVA , Duncan 's multiple range test and paired t-test ( α=0.05 ) . Significant increase in roughness was found only for TPH in the control group and TPH and Supreme immersed in Claritin ® ( p<0.05 ) . SEM analyses showed that the 4 composite resins underwent erosion and surface degradation after being subjected to the experimental conditions . In conclusion , although the roughness was slightly affected , the pH-cycling and acidic medicines caused surface degradation of the composite resins evaluated . Titratable acidity seemed to play a more crucial role on surface degradation of composite resins than BACKGROUND Surface quality of dental restorations is one of the important factors that determine the success of the restoration . Unfortunately , exterior discoloration is still a problem for dental resin composites . PURPOSE The purpose of the study was to investigate the influential factors on stain resistance of dental resin composites . MATERIAL S AND METHODS Filtek Supreme ( nanocomposite ) , Filtek A110 ( microfilled composite ) , Filtek Z250 ( microhybrid composite ) , and Filtek P60 ( microhybrid composite ) ( all products from 3 M ESPE , St. Paul , MN , USA ) were tested . Thirty-six specimens per material were prepared and r and omly assigned to 6 groups . The specimens in 5 groups were polished against 1,000- , 1,200- , 1,500- , 2,000- , and 2,500-grit s and paper , respectively . The specimens in a sixth group were polished with 2,500-grit or 1,200-grit s and paper and used as controls . Surface roughness ( Ra ) and gloss of the specimens were measured with a profilometer and a glossmeter , respectively . Specimens were immersed in a coffee solution ( control group in distilled water ) and kept in a 37 degrees C incubator .  Color was measured by a spectrophotometer at baseline , 3 days , 7 days , and 14 days , and color change ( DeltaE*(ab ) ) was calculated . RESULTS Coffee , material , Ra , and the interaction of material x Ra had statistically significant influences on the stain resistance of the dental composites tested . For most material s in coffee solution , time squared and Ra had significant effects on the discoloration . CONCLUSIONS Coffee had a significant influence on discoloration of the dental resin composite material s tested . The different composites behaved differently in coffee solution .  Discoloration increased as Ra increased for the composites tested , except with Filtek A110 . The discoloration process was accelerated with time The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of several finishing and polishing procedures on the surface roughness of nanofill and nanohybrid composites and ormocer-based dental restorative material s. The material s included a nanofill composite ( Supreme ) ; a nanohybrid composite ( Gr and io ) ; and an ormocer ( organically modified ceramic ) ( Admira ) . Forty specimens of each material were prepared using a Mylar strip ( polyester strip ) and r and omly divided into four finishing and polishing groups ( n 1/4 10 ) : ( I ) Diamondbur/Super-snapRainbowTechniqueKit(Al2O2-coated , grade d abrasive discs ) ; ( II ) Diamond bur/Astropol and Astrobrush system ( silicone abrasive polishers and brush system ) ; ( III ) Tungsten carbide bur/Super-snap Rainbow Technique Kit ; and ( IV ) Tungsten carbide bur/Astropol and Astro-brush system . The average surface roughness ( Ra ) in micrometers was measured using a “ Mahr Perthometer S4P ” Surface Roughness Tester and the data were compared using ANOVA at P 0.05 . The results of this study indicated that the Mylar strip produced the smoothest surface on all material s and among the finishing-polishing methods the first and the third methods performed significantly smoother surfaces than the second and the fourth methods for the three restoratives . Ormocer ( Admira ) performed the lowest variability in initial surface roughness among the tested material s . This study has shown that Super-snap abrasive discs produced a smoother surface than the Astropol and Astrobrush silicone polishers for composite and ormocer-based restorative material s , but the results would be valid clinical ly for readily accessible and flat surfaces i.e. , not for all areas in the mouth . Therefore silicone polishers are necessary for posterior areas and for concave and convex surfaces Objectives : The aim of this study was to investigate the superficial texture of composite restorations after different bleaching protocol s. Methods : Filtek Supreme ( S ) , Filtek Z350 ( F ) , and Gr and io ( G ) were compared to Opallis ( O ) and Filtek Z250 ( Z ) ( control microhybrid composites ) and to bovine enamel using three different bleaching agents : 35 % hydrogen peroxide Whiteness HP ( WHP ) , 35 % Whiteness HP MAXX ( WMAXX ) and 16 % carbamide peroxide Whiteness St and ard ( WS ) .  Six specimens from each composite were treated using each bleaching agent , according to the manufacturers ’ instructions . Three r and om sites were measured for superficial roughness ( Hommel Tester T 1000 ) weekly for each sample . Data were analyzed for each bleaching system using two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni tests at 5 % significance level . Results : WHP treatment significantly altered the Filtek Supreme composite over time . When WMAXX was used , Gr and io displayed the most significant alterations in surface roughness throughout the evaluation period , which was not observed for the other nanocomposites . Using WS , Filtek Z250 presented significant surface alterations over time , which was not seen in the nanofilled material s. Conclusions : Surface roughness alteration was material and time-dependent . The bleaching gels affected nanofilled and microhybrid composite resins . Enamel was the surface less affected by bleaching The aim of this article was to report the results of an 18-month longitudinal r and omized clinical trial that evaluated the clinical performance of microhybrid , packable and nanofilled resin composite restorations placed in Class I cavities of molar teeth . Three Class I resin composite restorations were placed in each of 35 patients . Each patient received one microhybrid ( ' Point 4 ' ; Kerr , Orange , CA , USA ) , one packable ( ' Packable Premise ' ; Kerr , Orange , CA , USA ) and one nanofilled ( ' Nanofilled Premise ' ; Kerr , Orange , CA , USA ) resin composite restoration .  Clinical evaluation was performed at baseline ( 2 weeks after placement ) , and after 6 , 12 and 18 months after placement using modified Ryge criteria . No patients were lost from the study . At the final appointment ( after 18 months ) , 95.4 % , 93.7 % and 96.2 % respectively of the microhybrid ( ' Point 4 ' ) , packable ( ' Packable Premise ' and nanofilled ( ' Nanofilled Premise ' ) resin composite restorations received Alfa ratings . Regardless of the type of restorative material , no significant changes were observed in the modified Ryge criteria at the baseline and 18-month recalls ( P < or=0.05 ) . Three restorations ( one from each group ) exhibited post-operative sensitivity at the baseline and 6-month appointment . After 18 months , one packable resin composite restoration  failed because of secondary caries , while secondary caries was not detected on any of the other restorations . The clinical performance of microhybrid ( ' Point 4 ' ) , packable ( ' Packable Premise ' ) and nanofilled ( ' Nanofilled Premise ' ) resin composite restorations was acceptable after 18 months . Further studies with longer follow-up periods are recommended to investigate the long-term survival of these restorations OBJECTIVES This in vitro study evaluated the surface roughness and microhardness of nanocomposites that contain nanoparticles and a microhybrid composite finished and polished with two different one-step polishing systems and a conventional multi-step polishing system . METHODS AND MATERIAL S The material s evaluated were Filtek Supreme XT , Gr and io , Ceram X , Aelite Aesthetic Enamel , Tetric EvoCeram and Filtek Z250 .  A total of 240 specimens ( 10-mm in diameter , 2 mm thick ) were fabricated for both tests ( n=120 each test ) in a plexiglass mold covered with a Mylar strip . After polymerization , five specimens per group received no polishing treatment and served as the control for both tests . For each composite group ( n=15 ) , the specimens were r and omly divided into three polishing systems : PoGo , OptraPol and Sof-Lex . All polishing systems were applied according to the manufacturers ' instructions after being ground wet with 1200 grid silicon carbide paper . The surface roughness values were determined using a profilometer . The microhardness measurements were performed using a digital microhardness tester ( load 500 g ; dwell time 15 seconds ) . The data were analyzed using the one-way ANOVA test at a significance level of 0.05 for both tests . Multiple comparison was performed with the Duncan Multiple Range test . RESULTS The smoothest surfaces were achieved under Mylar strips in all composite groups ( p<0.05 ) . There were no statistically significant differences between polishing systems in the Filtek Supreme XT , Ceram X , Aelite Aesthetic Enamel and Gr and io groups for surface roughness ( p>0.05 ) . In the Tetric EvoCeram group , Sof-Lex exhibited the highest roughness values . No statistically significant differences were evaluated between polishing systems ( p>0.05 ) ; whereas , the surfaces under Mylar Strip showed statistically significant lower values than the polished surfaces in terms of microhardness ( p<0.05 ) . CONCLUSION One-step polishing systems may be successfully used for polishing nanocomposites
There is no in vitro evidence to support the choice for nanofill or su bmi cron composites over traditional microhybrids based on better surface smoothness and /or gloss , or based upon maintenance of those superficial characteristics after surface challenges
OBJECTIVES Despite nanofill and su bmi cron composites ' aim to provide high initial polishing combined with superior smoothness and gloss retention , the question still remains whether clinicians should consider using these new material s over traditional microhybrids .
The aim of this paper was to systematic ally review the literature on how nanofills and su bmi crons react to polishing procedures and surface challenges in vitro compared with microhybrids .
The paper has also given an overview of the compositional characteristics of all resin composites and polishing systems whose performance was presented herein .