Medical and Dental Consultants’ Association of Nigeria
Home - About us - Editorial board - Search - Ahead of print - Current issue - Archives - Submit article - Instructions - Subscribe - Advertise - Contacts - Login 
  Users Online: 2154   Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
 

  Table of Contents 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 20  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 557-565

Efficacy of polishing kits on the surface roughness and color stability of different composite resins


1 Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Pamukkale University, Denizli, Turkey
2 Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey
3 Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey
4 Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey
5 Department of Pedodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey

Date of Acceptance12-Oct-2015
Date of Web Publication17-May-2017

Correspondence Address:
H Gumus
Department of Pedodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Erciyes University, Kayseri
Turkey
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/1119-3077.181387

Rights and Permissions
   Abstract 

Objective: Different polishing kits may have different effects on the composite resin surfaces. The aim of this study was to evaluate the surface roughness and color stability of four different composites which was applied different polishing technique. Materials and Methods: Thirty specimens were made for each composite resin group (nanohybrid, GrandioSo-GS; nanohybrid, Clearfil Majesty Esthetic-CME; hybrid, Valux Plus-VP; micro-hybrid, Ruby Comp-RC; [15 mm in diameter and 2 mm height]), with the different monomer composition and particle size from a total of 120 specimens. Each composite group was divided into three subgroups (n = 10). The first subgroup of the each composite subgroups served as control (C) and had no surface treatment. The second subgroup of the each composite resin groups was polished with finishing discs (Bisco Finishing Discs; Bisco Inc., Schaumburg, IL, USA). The third subgroup of the each composite resin was polished with polishing wheel (Enhance and PoGo, Dentsply, Konstanz, Germany). The surface roughness and the color differences measurement of the specimens were made and recorded. The data were compared using Kruskal–Wallis test, and regression analysis was used in order to examine the correlation between surface roughness and color differences of the specimens (α = 0.05). Results: The Kruskal–Wallis test indicated significant difference among the composite resins in terms of ΔE (P < 0.05), and there was no statistically significant difference among composite resins in terms of surface roughness (P > 0.05). Result of the regression analysis indicated statistically significant correlation between Ra and ΔE values (P < 0.05, r2 = 0.74). Conclusion: The findings of the present study have clinical relevance in the choice of polishing kits used.

Keywords: Atomic force microscope, color difference, color stability, composite resin, surface roughness


How to cite this article:
Kocaagaoglu H, Aslan T, Gürbulak A, Albayrak H, Taşdemir Z, Gumus H. Efficacy of polishing kits on the surface roughness and color stability of different composite resins. Niger J Clin Pract 2017;20:557-65

How to cite this URL:
Kocaagaoglu H, Aslan T, Gürbulak A, Albayrak H, Taşdemir Z, Gumus H. Efficacy of polishing kits on the surface roughness and color stability of different composite resins. Niger J Clin Pract [serial online] 2017 [cited 2021 Jul 27];20:557-65. Available from: https://www.njcponline.com/text.asp?2017/20/5/557/181387


   Introduction Top


Increases in patients' esthetic expectations have led dentists to increasingly use composite resin materials for the direct and indirect restoration of teeth.[1],[2] However, studies have showed that these materials present color alterations over time.[3],[4] The optical properties of the restorative materials are affected by finishing and polishing procedures, and discoloration may occur in these materials in the long term because of intrinsic or extrinsic reasons.[5] Color changes of composite resins may cause both patient and clinician dissatisfaction while the success of an esthetic restoration depends on the color stability of the materials used. The degree of color change can be affected by surface roughness,[6] and when the resin composite is against a Mylar matrix, the smoothest surface is achieved without finishing or polishing.[7] This surface has a resin-rich layer and poor mechanical properties and should be removed; therefore, discoloration of the composite resin may be eliminated.[8] The longevity of the composite resin restorations is greatly affected by the quality of the finishing and polishing procedures.[9] Smooth surfaces reduce plaque retention, gingival irritation, recurrent caries, and discoloration of the restoration.[10],[11],[12] For oral health considerations, it is also important to determine the best finishing/polishing technique to obtain the best results.[13] For these reasons, finishing and polishing procedures of the composite resins are crucial in dental practice.

Several classification systems have been available for composite resin materials, according to the filler type, the particle size of the filler, and filler distribution. At present, classifications according to particle size have been widely used.[14] de Moraes et al.[15] showed that nanohybrid and nanofilled composite resins have approximately equal performance in terms of clinical experience, and their performance is better than that of micro-hybrids.

There are several finishing and polishing materials available in dentistry today such as diamond burs, carbide finishing burs, hard-bonded/surface-coated ceramic diamond rotary instruments, aluminum oxide-impregnated rubber or silicon discs, and wheels.[16]

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effects of two polishing systems on the surface roughness and color stability of composite resins. The first null hypothesis was that there was no difference between polishing systems in terms of surface roughness and color stability. The second null hypothesis was that there was no difference among the composite resins in terms of surface roughness and color stability. Finally, the third null hypothesis was that there was no correlation between the surface roughness and color stability of the composite resins.


   Materials and Methods Top


Preparation of the specimens

Four light-polymerized composite resins (Shade A3) were used: Two nanohybrids (GrandioSo [GS; Voco GmbH, Cuxhaven, Germany], Clearfil Majesty™ Esthetic [CME; Kuraray Co., Osaka, Japan]), one hybrid (Valux™ Plus [VP; 3M Espe, St. Paul, USA]), and one micro-hybrid (Ruby Comp [RC; Rubydent, Istanbul, Turkey]). In addition, an aluminum oxide/diamond-abrasive-impregnated two step polishing system (Enhance ® and PoGo ® [EP; Dentsply DeTrey GmbH, Konstanz, Germany]) and aluminum oxide impregnated four step polishing system (Bisco Finishing Discs [BFD]; Bisco Inc., Schaumburg IL, USA) were tested. The properties of the composite resins and the composition of the polishing systems are shown in [Table 1] and [Table 2].
Table 1: Composite resin materials and their properties

Click here to view
Table 2: Polishing systems and their properties

Click here to view


Disc-shaped specimens were prepared using a special cylindrical mold (15 mm in diameter by 2 mm height) and a Mylar strip band. Each material was inserted into the mold and pressed between the Mylar strip band and a glass slide in order to extrude excess material and to produce a smooth surface [Figure 1]a and [Figure 1]b. The specimens were polymerized using a halogen curing unit (Optilux 501, Kerr, Orange, CA, USA) according to the manufacturer's instructions, with a light intensity of 500 mW/cm 2 for 40 s. The lamp output of the light was controlled periodically using a radiometer (Hilux, Benlioğlu Dental, Ankara, Turkey) to ensure a light intensity at least 500 mW/cm 2. A total of 120 specimens were prepared from 4 different composite resin groups, where each composite resin group was divided into three subgroups (n = 10): (1) Control group (C), (2) EP group, and (3) BFD group. After that, all specimens were stored in distilled water at 37°C for 24 h. Then, the specimens were polished by a single operator, according to the manufacturer's instructions.
Figure 1: Schematic illustration of the composite producing apparatus: (a) Frontal view of the assembly, (b) Top view of the special mold

Click here to view


In the control groups, no surface treatment was performed. In the EP group, the specimens were primarily wet-polished for 20 s with enhance at 20,000 rpm, rinsed with water in order to remove debris, and then dried with oil-free air. The polishing protocol was performed with light pressure to achieve smooth surfaces. The specimens were then wet-polished with PoGo at 20,000 rpm, according to the manufacturer's instructions for 40 s, rinsed with water, and then air-dried. In the BFD group, the specimens were wet-polished according to the manufacturer's instructions for 20 s at 20,000 rpm by using polishing discs which were in four grits (Coarse [Brown], Medium [Green], Fine [Blue], and Ultrafine [Tan], respectively). The specimens were then rinsed with water and air-dried. Each polishing material was used only once, and the same low-speed handpiece (Synea Straight; W and H Dentalwerk Bürmoos GmbH, Bürmoos, Austria) was used throughout this study.

Surface roughness measurement

The surface roughness values of each specimen were then measured by using a profilometer (Surftest SJ-301; Mitutoyo America Corporation, Aurora, ABD). For each specimen, five measurements at different locations, with a cut-off length of 25 μm and 2 mm tracing length, and the average values were recorded (Ra; μm).

Color change measurement

First, color surveying of all specimens was performed with a colorimeter device (CR-400; Minolta, Osaka, Japan) using the Commission Internationale de l'Eclairage (CIE) L*a*b* system. The CIE-Lab is expressed by the L*, a*, and b* coordinates, and for each specimen, the color measurement was calculated 3 times, and the average values of L1*, a1*, and b1* were obtained. L* refers to lightness and coordinates with value ranges from black to white. The values of a* and b* are chromaticity that coordinate in the red-green axis and the yellow-blue axis. Following the first color measurements, all specimens were stored in a coffee solution (Nescafe Classic; Nestle, Vevey, Switzerland) at 37°C for 48 h. The coffee (3.6 g) was dissolved in 300 mL of boiling distilled water, and after stirring for 10 min, the solution was filtered through a filter paper. After 48 h of storing the specimens in the coffee solution, they were rinsed with distilled water for 5 min and then blotted with dry tissue paper before color measurements were taken.[1] The second color surveying of all specimens was then measured 3 times, and the average values of L2*, a2*, and b2 were obtained. The total color difference (ΔE*) between the two color measurements was calculated as follows:

Δ* = ([L * 1 − L * 2]2+ [a * 1 − a*2]2+ [b * 1 − b*2]2)½

After color measurement, two specimens were randomly selected from each group for scanning electron microscope (SEM) and atomic force microscope (AFM) analyses.

Statistical analysis

A Kruskal–Wallis test was used to evaluate the color stability and surface roughness data (α± = 0.05) using statistical software (SPSS version 20; SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Regression analyses were used to examine the correlation between the surface roughness and color differences (α± = 0.05).


   Results Top


Evaluation of color stability

Evaluation of color stability among the composite resins

The color difference values of the composite resins are shown in [Table 3]. The Kruskal–Wallis test indicated significant differences among the composite resins (P < 0.05); the highest color difference values were in the VP group, and the lowest were in the CME group.
Table 3: The values of total color change of the composite resins

Click here to view


Evaluation of color stability between the polishing materials

The color difference values of the polishing systems are shown in [Table 4]. A statistically significant difference was found among the sub-groups (P < 0.05); and although there was no significant difference between the EP and BFD polishing systems, the C group showed the highest ΔE values.
Table 4: The values of the total color change of the polishing systems

Click here to view


Although there was a significant difference between the EP and BFD polishing systems in the GS group (P < 0.05), there was no difference in the CME, VP, and RC groups (P > 0.05).

Evaluation of surface roughness

Evaluation of surface roughness among composite resins

The surface roughness values are shown in [Table 5]. There was no statistically significant difference among composite resins (P > 0.05).
Table 5: The values of the surface roughness of the composite resins

Click here to view


Evaluation of surface roughness between the polishing systems

The surface roughness values are shown in [Table 6]. A statistically significant difference was found between the polishing systems (P < 0.05).
Table 6: The values of the surface roughness of the polishing systems

Click here to view


Although there was no statistically significant difference between the EP and BFD polishing systems in the CME and VP groups (P > 0.05), a statistically significant difference was found in the GS and RC groups (P < 0.05). Among all of the composite resin groups, the C group showed the lowest surface roughness values.

Both the BFD and EP groups showed statistically significant differences among the composite resins (P < 0.05), while in the general evaluation, the EP polishing system showed rougher surfaces.

Relation between color difference and surface roughness values

The results of the regression analysis indicated that a statistically significant correlation was found between the Ra and Δ values (P < 0.05, r2 = 0.74), indicating that these two variables were correlated at 74% with each other.

Scanning electron microscope and atomic force microscope images of surface topography

Scanning electron microscope observations

The SEM analysis showed good agreement with the data. The C groups showed homogenous surface textures [Figure 2]a,[Figure 3]a,[Figure 4]a, and [Figure 5]a, and both polishing systems exhibited similar morphologies in the composite resins. A high density of inorganic fillers of the composite resin is shown the micrographs [Figure 2]b and [Figure 2]c,[Figure 3]b and [Figure 3]c,[Figure 4]b and [Figure 4]c, and [Figure 5]b and [Figure 5]c.
Figure 2: Scanning electron microscope images of Valux Plus™ (a) Control,(b) Enhance® and PoGo®, and (c) Bisco finishing discs groups

Click here to view
Figure 3: Scanning electron microscope images of Clearfil Majesty™ Esthetic (a) Control, (b) Enhance® and PoGo®, and (c) Bisco finishing discs groups

Click here to view
Figure 4: Scanning electron microscope images of GrandioSo (a) Control, (b) Enhance® and PoGo®, and (c) Bisco finishing discs groups

Click here to view
Figure 5: Scanning electron microscope images of Ruby Comp (a) Control, (b) Enhance® and PoGo®, and (c) Bisco finishing discs groups

Click here to view


Atomic force microscope observations

The C groups showed homogenous surface textures [Figure 6]a,[Figure 7]a, [Figure 8]a, and [Figure 9]a, whereas the EP polishing systems showed uniform irregularities in the CME and RC [Figure 7]b and [Figure 9]b, respectively]. The EP and BFD polishing systems showed uniform irregularities in the VP [Figure 6]b and [Figure 6]c, respectively], and the BFD polishing system showed uniform irregularities in the GS [Figure 8]c. The EP polishing system showed deep scratch lines in the GS [Figure 8]b, and the BFD polishing system showed deep scratch lines in the CME [Figure 7]c, and in the RC [Figure 9]c.
Figure 6: Atomic force microscope images of ValuxTM Plus (a) Control, (b) Enhance® and PoGo®, and (c) Bisco finishing discs groups

Click here to view
Figure 7: Atomic force microscope images of Clearfil Majesty™ Esthetic (a) Control, (b) Enhance® and PoGo®, and (c) Bisco finishing discs groups

Click here to view
Figure 8: Atomic force microscope images of GrandioSo (a) Control, (b) Enhance® and PoGo®, and (c) Bisco finishing discs groups

Click here to view
Figure 9: Atomic force microscope images of Ruby Comp (a) Control, (b) Enhance® and PoGo®, and (c) Bisco finishing discs groups

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


In this study, based on the data obtained, the first hypothesis was rejected since there was a significant difference between polishing systems; the second hypothesis was rejected since there was a significant difference in terms of color stability, but there was no difference in terms of surface roughness among the composite resins.

In order to understand the surface texture of dental materials, specific devices called profilometers have been used to measure surface roughness.[6],[17],[18],[19] However, this measurement method is limited because only numerical or quantitative values can be obtained.[20] SEM can be used to show contour changes that may not be evaluated by the profilometer, but SEM has limitations because it cannot define three-dimensional surface topography. AFM has recently been used in dentistry to obtain three-dimensional detailed topographical images of surface roughness.[21] For the present study, the surface roughness values of each specimen were measured by means of a profilometer because of practical usage, cheap cost, and obtaining numerical values. In addition, SEM and AFM observations were made to evaluate contour changes and three-dimensional surface topography.

Generally, it is believed that surface roughness is associated with the filler size of the composite resins.[6],[22] Previous studies have mentioned that resin composite resins with smaller filler sizes promote smoother surfaces.[6],[23],[24] In the present study, there was no significant difference among the composite resins, whereas the nanohybrid composite resins GS and CME exhibited similar surface roughness with the micro-hybrid composite resin RC. This finding was unexpected, but the RC's filler contents were similar to the others [Table 1]. In literature, it is possible to find similar results. Gönülol and Yılmaz [17] tested the surface roughness of composite resins and reported that no significant difference was found between micro-hybrid and nanohybrid composite resins. These results are also similar to those of the study by de Costa et al.[23]

In this study, the rough surfaces were obtained in the CME group in both polishing groups. According to Iazzetti et al.,[5] glass particles in composite resins cause high porosity, and CME includes silica and barium glass fillers for the inorganic content. Therefore, because of the inclusion of the glass particles, the CME could show higher Ra values.

The finishing and polishing of composite resin restoration are necessary stages [9] and provide better clinical outcomes.[25] A high degree surface roughness can cause plaque accumulation, gingival irritation, and caries.[26] In this study, all of the surface roughness values that contained two finishing or polishing systems were >0.2 µm, which is the critical size for bacterial adhesion.[6] Unlike ceramic materials, composite resins are subject to wear over time because of chewing forces; therefore, as long as the composite resin material is in the mouth, its surface may become smoother over time.[6] In the C groups, for all composite resins, the smoothest surfaces were obtained, which was in accordance with literature.[6],[27],[28] In this study, both of the polishing systems showed higher Ra values than the C group, and the surface roughness of all the composite resin materials cured against the Mylar strip were similar. However, because this polymerized surface is rich in organic matrix and less resistant to abrasion, it is not preferred.[29]

The BFD group generally showed lower surface roughness values than the EP group. In many studies, the lower surface roughness values were achieved using aluminum oxide discs.[20],[30],[31]

Although there are several studies [6],[7],[17],[20],[32] including the polishing systems, a study could not be found which evaluated the BFD polishing system and RC composite resins. As a working principle, the BFD is similar to the Sof-Lex finishing discs (3M, USA). In addition, the current study data obtained from the BFD was similar with Gönülol andYılmaz,[17] and higher than Berger et al.[33] which evaluated Sof-Lex finishing discs.

One reason for obtaining a smoother surface with the BFD was that when polishing times were evaluated, the use of four BFD had a longer polishing period than the EP. In literature, it has been noted that the time used for the polishing procedures might have influenced the surface roughness.[34] Moreover, van Dijken et al.[35] reported that the aluminum oxide discs abrade resin matrices and filler particles equally, and they achieve smoother surfaces.

Regarding the color differences after the finishing and polishing procedures, the C groups in all composite resins were similar and had significant discoloration. This finding is in accordance with Gönülol and Yılmaz.[17]

The intrinsic factors include the discoloration of the resin material itself, whereas the extrinsic factors include staining by the absorption of coloring agents.[1]

The literature has reported the discoloration of composite resins occurring when they were exposed to different staining media, such as coffee, cola, tea, and fruit juice.[36],[37] In the current study, coffee was used as a coloring agent because of its frequent consumption in daily life.

Because the maximum water sorption of composite resins occurs during the first 24 h,[38] the specimens were stored in distilled water at 37°C for 24 h, before the experimental study. In addition, this situation simulated the 1st day of service for the intraoral restorations.

For measuring the discoloration, spectrophotometers and colorimeters may be used, and there are several studies that evaluate the color differences of dental materials using colorimeters [39],[40] and spectrophotometers.[1],[17] In the present study, a colorimeter was used, and according to the working principle of the colorimeter, the specimens had to be at least 15 mm in diameter; therefore, the specimens were 15 mm in diameter.

The CIE L*a*b* color measuring system is recommended for dental purposes. In the literature, Δ >1 was generally found to be visually perceptible, and Δ ≥3.7 was found to be a poor color match value.[39] In the present study, all of the composite resin groups revealed values that were >3.7 after the 48 h coffee storage. One reason for obtaining high Δ values in the composite resins is that one side of the specimens was polished, and color reflection in the unpolished surface might have occurred.

Pires-de-Souza Fde et al.[41] reported that resin plays a major role in the discoloration of composite resins, and composite resins that have trimethylene glycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA) in their compositions release large amounts of monomers in aqueous media when compared with Bisphenol-A diglycidylether methacrylate and UDMA.[36],[42] The highest Δ value was in the VP group, and the Valux™ Plus had TEGDMA in their organic chemical composition.

In the present study, there was a statistically significant correlation between surface roughness and color change. Previous studies have reported that, besides material composition, the finishing and polishing procedures might also influence composite resin surface quality, and that rough surfaces exhibit high staining.[43],[44] The structure of a resin composite resin and the characteristics of particles have a direct impact on surface smoothness and susceptibility to extrinsic staining.[45]


   Conclusion Top


Within the limitations of this study, following conclusions were reached:

  • Among the resin composite resins tested, the VP group showed the highest color change, whereas the lowest color change was seen in the CME group
  • There was no significant difference among the composite resins in terms of surface roughness; in addition, the BFD presented smoother surfaces than the EP
  • There was a statistically significant correlation between the surface roughness and the color differences values.


Financial support and sponsorship

Nil

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
   References Top

1.
Güler AU, Duran I, Yücel Aç, Ozkan P. Effects of air-polishing powders on color stability of composite resins. J Appl Oral Sci 2011;19:505-10.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Gaengler P, Hoyer I, Montag R, Gaebler P. Micromorphological evaluation of posterior composite restorations – A 10-year report. J Oral Rehabil 2004;31:991-1000.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Mundim FM, Da Fonseca Roberti Garcia L, Silva Sousa AB, Cruvinel DR, De Carvalho Panzeri Pires-De-Souza F. Influence of artificial accelerated aging on the color stability and opacity of composites of different shades. Minerva Stomatol 2010;59:535-41.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Lee YK, Lim BS, Kim CW, Powers JM. Color characteristics of low-chroma and high-translucence dental resin composites by different measuring modes. J Biomed Mater Res 2001;58:613-21.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Iazzetti G, Burgess JO, Gardiner D, Ripps A. Color stability of fluoride-containing restorative materials. Oper Dent 2000;25:520-5.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
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;96:33-40.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Janus J, Fauxpoint G, Arntz Y, Pelletier H, Etienne O. Surface roughness and morphology of three nanocomposites after two different polishing treatments by a multitechnique approach. Dent Mater 2010;26:416-25.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Ergücü Z, Türkün LS, Aladag A. Color stability of nanocomposites polished with one-step systems. Oper Dent 2008;33:413-20.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Roeder LB, Powers JM. Surface roughness of resin composite prepared by single-use and multi-use diamonds. Am J Dent 2004;17:109-12.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Bollen CM, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: A review of the literature. Dent Mater 1997;13:258-69.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Chan KC, Fuller JL, Hormati AA. The ability of foods to stain two composite resins. J Prosthet Dent 1980;43:542-5.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Shintani H, Satou J, Satou N, Hayashihara H, Inoue T. Effects of various finishing methods on staining and accumulation of Streptococcus mutans HS-6 on composite resins. Dent Mater 1985;1:225-7.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Yalçin F, Korkmaz Y, Baseren M. The effect of two different polishing techniques on microleakage of new composites in class V restorations. J Contemp Dent Pract 2006;7:18-25.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Ritter AV. Direct resin-based composites: Current recommendations for optimal clinical results. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2005;26:481-2, 484-90.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
de Moraes RR, Gonçalves Lde S, Lancellotti AC, Consani S, Correr-Sobrinho L, Sinhoreti MA. Nanohybrid resin composites: Nanofiller loaded materials or traditional microhybrid resins? Oper Dent 2009;34:551-7.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Jefferies SR. The art and science of abrasive finishing and polishing in restorative dentistry. Dent Clin North Am 1998;42:613-27.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Gönülol N, Yilmaz F. The effects of finishing and polishing techniques on surface roughness and color stability of nanocomposites. J Dent 2012;40 Suppl 2:e64-70.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Mendes AP, Barceleiro Mde O, dos Reis RS, Bonato LL, Dias KR. Changes in surface roughness and color stability of two composites caused by different bleaching agents. Braz Dent J 2012;23:659-66.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Sirin Karaarslan E, Bulbul M, Yildiz E, Secilmis A, Sari F, Usumez A. Effects of different polishing methods on color stability of resin composites after accelerated aging. Dent Mater J 2013;32:58-67.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Can Say E, Yurdagüven H, Yaman BC, Özer F. Surface roughness and morphology of resin composites polished with two-step polishing systems. Dent Mater J 2014;33:332-42.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Kakaboura A, Fragouli M, Rahiotis C, Silikas N. Evaluation of surface characteristics of dental composites using profilometry, scanning electron, atomic force microscopy and gloss-meter. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2007;18:155-63.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Lee YK, El Zawahry M, Noaman KM, Powers JM. Effect of mouthwash and accelerated aging on the color stability of esthetic restorative materials. Am J Dent 2000;13:159-61.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
da Costa J, Adams-Belusko A, Riley K, Ferracane JL. The effect of various dentifrices on surface roughness and gloss of resin composites. J Dent 2010;38 Suppl 2:e123-8.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Reis AF, Giannini M, Lovadino JR, dos Santos Dias CT. The effect of six polishing systems on the surface roughness of two packable resin-based composites. Am J Dent 2002;15:193-7.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Dunkin RT, Chambers DW. Gingival response to class V composite resin restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 1983;106:482-4.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Reis AF, Giannini M, Lovadino JR, Ambrosano GM. Effects of various finishing systems on the surface roughness and staining susceptibility of packable composite resins. Dent Mater 2003;19:12-8.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Antonson SA, Yazici AR, Kilinc E, Antonson DE, Hardigan PC. Comparison of different finishing/polishing systems on surface roughness and gloss of resin composites. J Dent 2011;39 Suppl 1:e9-17.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Ergücü Z, Türkün LS. Surface roughness of novel resin composites polished with one-step systems. Oper Dent 2007;32:185-92.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Borges AB, Marsilio AL, Pagani C, Rodrigues JR. Surface roughness of packable composite resins polished with various systems. J Esthet Restor Dent 2004;16:42-7.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Lu H, Roeder LB, Powers JM. Effect of polishing systems on the surface roughness of microhybrid composites. J Esthet Restor Dent 2003;15:297-303.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Barbosa SH, Zanata RL, Navarro MF, Nunes OB. Effect of different finishing and polishing techniques on the surface roughness of microfilled, hybrid and packable composite resins. Braz Dent J 2005;16:39-44.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Shimizu Y, Tada K, Seki H, Kakuta K, Miyagawa Y, Shen JF, et al. Effects of air polishing on the resin composite-dentin interface. Odontology 2014;102:279-83.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Berger SB, Palialol AR, Cavalli V, Giannini M. Surface roughness and staining susceptibility of composite resins after finishing and polishing. J Esthet Restor Dent 2011;23:34-43.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Da Costa J, Ferracane J, Paravina RD, Mazur RF, Roeder L. The effect of different polishing systems on surface roughness and gloss of various resin composites. J Esthet Restor Dent 2007;19:214-24.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
van Dijken JW, Ruyter IE. Surface characteristics of posterior composites after polishing and toothbrushing. Acta Odontol Scand 1987;45:337-46.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Ertas E, Güler AU, Yücel AC, Köprülü H, Güler E. Color stability of resin composites after immersion in different drinks. Dent Mater J 2006;25:371-6.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Fontes ST, Fernández MR, de Moura CM, Meireles SS. Color stability of a nanofill composite: Effect of different immersion media. J Appl Oral Sci 2009;17:388-91.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Haselton DR, Diaz-Arnold AM, Dunne JT Jr. Shear bond strengths of 2 intraoral porcelain repair systems to porcelain or metal substrates. J Prosthet Dent 2001;86:526-31.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
çelik EU, Aladag A, Türkün LS, Yilmaz G. Color changes of dental resin composites before and after polymerization and storage in water. J Esthet Restor Dent 2011;23:179-88.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Tuncer S, Demirci M, Tiryaki M, Unlü N, Uysal Ö. The effect of a modeling resin and thermocycling on the surface hardness, roughness, and color of different resin composites. J Esthet Restor Dent 2013;25:404-19.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Pires-de-Souza Fde C, Garcia Lda F, Roselino Lde M, Naves LZ. Color stability of silorane-based composites submitted to accelerated artificial ageing – An in situ study. J Dent 2011;39 Suppl 1:e18-24.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
Güler AU, Güler E, Yücel AC, Ertas E. Effects of polishing procedures on color stability of composite resins. J Appl Oral Sci 2009;17:108-12.  Back to cited text no. 42
    
43.
Yap AU, Lye KW, Sau CW. Surface characteristics of tooth-colored restoratives polished utilizing different polishing systems. Oper Dent 1997;22:260-5.  Back to cited text no. 43
    
44.
Hachiya Y, Iwaku M, Hosoda H, Fusayama T. Relation of finish to discoloration of composite resins. J Prosthet Dent 1984;52:811-4.  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.
Türkün LS, Türkün M. Effect of bleaching and repolishing procedures on coffee and tea stain removal from three anterior composite veneering materials. J Esthet Restor Dent 2004;16:290-301.  Back to cited text no. 45
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5], [Figure 6], [Figure 7], [Figure 8], [Figure 9]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5], [Table 6]


This article has been cited by
1 FARKLI POLISAJ SISTEMLERININ POSTERIOR BÖLGEDE KULLANILAN KOMPOZIT REZINLERIN YÜZEY PÜRÜZLÜLÜGÜ ÜZERINE ETKISI
Meltem Nermin DURSUN,Cansu ATALAY
Atatürk Üniversitesi Dis Hekimligi Fakültesi Dergisi. 2022; : 1
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 Press-On Force Effect on the Efficiency of Composite Restorations Final Polishing—Preliminary In Vitro Study
Anna Lehmann,Kacper Nijakowski,Natalia Potempa,Pawel Sieradzki,Mateusz Król,Olaf Czyz,Agnieszka Radziszewska,Anna Surdacka
Coatings. 2021; 11(6): 705
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
3 In Vitro Effects of Fluoride, Hydroxyapatite, and Bromelain-Containing Toothpaste Types on Surface Roughness of Different Restorative Materials
Gül Yildiz Telatar,Fatih Bedir
Journal of Advanced Oral Research. 2021; 12(2): 267
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
4 Color Stability of Flowable Composites in Different Viscosities
Bora KORKUT,Cigdem HACIALI
Clinical and Experimental Health Sciences. 2020;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
5 The Effect of Finishing and Polishing Sequences on The Surface Roughness of Three Different Nanocomposites and Composite/Enamel and Composite/Cementum Interfaces
Ksenia Babina,Maria Polyakova,Inna Sokhova,Vladlena Doroshina,Marianna Arakelyan,Nina Novozhilova
Nanomaterials. 2020; 10(7): 1339
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
6 Effect of different polishing techniques for composite resin materials on surface properties and bacterial biofilm formation
Aysegul Kurt,Aylin Cilingir,Caglar Bilmenoglu,Nursen Topcuoglu,Guven Kulekci
Journal of Dentistry. 2019; : 103199
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

Top
  
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed5452    
    Printed104    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded793    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 6    

Recommend this journal