Comparative Evaluation of Polishing Protocols on the Surface Roughness and Gloss of Additively Manufactured Permanent Resins

Esra Yıldırım Manav; Sedanur Sakallı; Simge Canatan Keskin

doi:10.52037/eads.2026.0013

Comparative Evaluation of Polishing Protocols on the Surface Roughness and Gloss of Additively Manufactured Permanent Resins

Abstract

Objective: This in vitro study aims to evaluate the effect of different polishing protocols on the surface roughness and gloss of two additively manufactured permanent resin materials used for definitive restorations. Materials and Method: Sixty disk-shaped specimens (12 × 2 mm) were fabricated from two 3D-printed permanent resins, Bego VarseoSmile Crown Plus and Saremco CrownTec, and post-cured using a xenon flash light-curing unit. Each material was divided into three subgroups (n = 10): (1) unpolished control; (2) Diaprint 3D Twist multi-step rubber polishers; and (3) OptiDisc aluminum oxide discs. The surface roughness (Ra, µm) was measured with a contact profilometer, and the gloss (GU) was recorded with a glossmeter at 20°, 60°, and 85° incident angles, according to ISO 2813. The data were analyzed using a two-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post hoc test (α = 0.05). Results: The polishing protocol significantly influenced the surface roughness (p < 0.001), whereas the material type did not (p > 0.05). The Diaprint 3D Twist system produced the smoothest surfaces (Ra = 0.22 ± 0.04 µm), which were significantly lower than those achieved with OptiDisc or the control group (p < 0.05). Both the polishing protocol (p = 0.001) and the material type (p < 0.001) significantly affected the gloss. The highest gloss was observed in the Saremco-Diaprint 3D Twist group (79.0 ± 4.6 GU). No significant interaction was found between the factors. Conclusion: The choice of polishing protocol plays a critical role in optimizing the surface quality of the 3D-printed permanent resins. The Diaprint 3D Twist multi-step rubber system provided the smoothest and most glossy surfaces for both materials, achieving roughness values below the clinical threshold for bacterial adhesion. Saremco CrownTec exhibited a higher gloss than Bego VarseoSmile Crown Plus, which was likely due to its filler characteristics.

Keywords

References

"1. Revilla-León M, Meyer MJ, Özcan M. Metal additive manu-facturing technologies: literature review of current status and prosthodontic applications. Int J Comput Dent. 2019;22(1):55–67.
2. Tahayeri A, Morgan M, Fugolin AP, Bompolaki D, Athirasala A, Pfeifer CS, et al. 3D printed versus conventionally cured provisional crown and bridge dental materials. Dent Mater. 2018;34(2):192–200. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2017.10.003.
3. van Noort R. The future of dental devices is digital. Dent Mater. 2012;28(1):3–12. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2011.10.014.
4. Alharbi N, Osman R, Wismeijer D. Effects of build direction on the mechanical properties of 3D-printed complete coverage interim dental restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;115(6):760–767. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.12.002.
5. Perea-Lowery L, Gibreel M, Vallittu PK, Lassila L. Evalua-tion of the mechanical properties and degree of conversion of 3D printed splint material. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2021;115:104254. doi:10.1016/j.jmbbm.2020.104254.
6. Bollen CM, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M. Comparison of sur-face roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the lit-erature. Dent Mater. 1997;13(4):258–269. doi:10.1016/s0109-5641(97)80038-3.
7. Heintze SD, Forjanic M, Rousson V. Surface roughness and gloss of dental materials as a function of force and polishing time in vitro. Dent Mater. 2006;22(2):146–165. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2005.04.013.
8. Song F, Koo H, Ren D. Effects of Material Properties on Bacterial Adhesion and Biofilm Formation. J Dent Res. 2015;94(8):1027–1034. doi:10.1177/0022034515587690.

9. Moreira FGG, Crispim AHT, Santos J, Grisi M, Dal Piva AMO, Almeida LFD, et al. Effect of print layer thick-ness and finishing and polishing protocols on the flexu-ral strength, cell adhesion, and surface properties of a 3D printed resin. J Prosthet Dent. 2025;133(5):1359.e1–1359.e13. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2025.02.037.
10. Simoneti DM, Pereira-Cenci T, Dos Santos MBF. Com-parison of material properties and biofilm formation in interim single crowns obtained by 3D printing and conventional methods. J Prosthet Dent. 2022;127(1):168–172. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.06.026.
11. Alharethi NA. Evaluation of the influence of build orientation on the surface roughness and flexural strength of 3D-printed den-ture base resin and its comparison with CAD-CAM milled den-ture base resin. European Journal of Dentistry. 2024;18(01):321–328. doi:10.1055/s-0043-1768972.
12. 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(4):214–224; discussion 225–226. doi:10.1111/j.1708-8240.2007.00104.x.
13. Paravina RD, Ontiveros JC, Powers JM. Curing-dependent changes in color and translucency parameter of composite bleach shades. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry. 2002;14(3):158–166. doi:10.1111/j.1708-8240.2002.tb00516.x.
14. Mitra SB, Wu D, Holmes BN. An application of nanotech-nology in advanced dental materials. J Am Dent Assoc. 2003;134(10):1382–1390. doi:10.14219/jada.archive.2003.0054.
15. da Costa JB, Ferracane JL, Amaya-Pajares S, Pfefferkorn F. Visually acceptable gloss threshold for resin composite and polishing systems. J Am Dent Assoc. 2021;152(5):385–392. doi:10.1016/j.adaj.2020.09.027.
16. Rastelli AN, Jacomassi DP, Faloni AP, Queiroz TP, Rojas SS, Bernardi MI, et al. The filler content of the dental compos-ite resins and their influence on different properties. Microsc Res Tech. 2012;75(6):758–765. doi:10.1002/jemt.21122.
17. Soliman HAN, Elkholany NR, Hamama HH, El-Sharkawy FM, Mahmoud SH, Comisi JC. Effect of Different Polishing Systems on the Surface Roughness and Gloss of Novel Nanohybrid Resin Composites. Eur J Dent. 2021;15(2):259–265. doi:10.1055/s-0040-1718477.
18. Erturk-Avunduk AT, Atılan-Yavuz S, Filiz H, Cengiz-Yanardag E. A comparative study of polishing systems on optical properties and surface roughness of additively manufactured and conventional resin based composites. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):25658. doi:10.1038/s41598-024-77449-9.
19. Al-Qahtani AS, Tulbah HI, Binhasan M, Abbasi MS, Ahmed N, Shabib S, et al. Surface Properties of Polymer Resins Fabricated with Subtractive and Additive Manufacturing Techniques. Poly-mers (Basel). 2021;13(23):4077. doi:10.3390/polym13234077.
20. Mazurek-Popczyk J, Nowicki A, Arkusz K, Pałka L, Zimoch-Korzycka A, Baldy-Chudzik K. Evaluation of biofilm formation on acrylic resins used to fabricate dental temporary restora-tions with the use of 3D printing technology. BMC Oral Health. 2022;22(1):442. doi:10.1186/s12903-022-02488-5.
21. Aykent F, Yondem I, Ozyesil AG, Gunal SK, Avunduk MC, Ozkan S. Effect of different finishing techniques for restorative mate-rials on surface roughness and bacterial adhesion. J Prosthet Dent. 2010;103(4):221–227. doi:10.1016/s0022-3913(10)600340.
22. Cazzaniga G, Ottobelli M, Ionescu AC, Paolone G, Gherlone E, Ferracane JL, et al. In vitro biofilm formation on resin-based composites after different finishing and polishing procedures. Journal of dentistry. 2017;67:43–52.
23. Lauvahutanon S, Takahashi H, Shiozawa M, Iwasaki N, Asakawa Y, Oki M, et al. Mechanical properties of composite resin blocks for CAD/CAM. Dent Mater J. 2014;33(5):705–710. doi:10.4012/dmj.2014-208.
24. Mukai S, Mukai E, Santos-Junior JA, Shibli JA, Faveri M, Giro G. Assessment of the reproducibility and precision of milling and 3D printing surgical guides. BMC Oral Health. 2021;21(1):1. doi:10.1186/s12903-020-01362-6.
25. Alharbi G, Al Nahedh HN, Al-Saud LM, Shono N, Maawadh A. Effect of different finishing and polishing systems on sur-face properties of universal single shade resin-based compos-ites. BMC Oral Health. 2024;24(1):197. doi:10.1186/s12903-024-03958-8."

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Dental Materials and Equipment, Restorative Dentistry

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Esra Yıldırım Manav ^*
0000-0001-8073-1222
Türkiye

Sedanur Sakallı
0000-0002-6562-4709
Türkiye

Simge Canatan Keskin
0000-0002-8857-2534
Türkiye

Publication Date

August 30, 2026

Submission Date

October 21, 2025

Acceptance Date

April 14, 2026

Published in Issue

Year 2026 Volume: 53 Number: 2

DOI

https://doi.org/10.52037/eads.2026.0013

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA86FT57PE

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Yıldırım Manav, E., Sakallı, S., & Canatan Keskin, S. (2026). Comparative Evaluation of Polishing Protocols on the Surface Roughness and Gloss of Additively Manufactured Permanent Resins. European Annals of Dental Sciences, 53(2), 81-85. https://doi.org/10.52037/eads.2026.0013

AMA

1.Yıldırım Manav E, Sakallı S, Canatan Keskin S. Comparative Evaluation of Polishing Protocols on the Surface Roughness and Gloss of Additively Manufactured Permanent Resins. EADS. 2026;53(2):81-85. doi:10.52037/eads.2026.0013

Chicago

Yıldırım Manav, Esra, Sedanur Sakallı, and Simge Canatan Keskin. 2026. “Comparative Evaluation of Polishing Protocols on the Surface Roughness and Gloss of Additively Manufactured Permanent Resins”. European Annals of Dental Sciences 53 (2): 81-85. https://doi.org/10.52037/eads.2026.0013.

EndNote

Yıldırım Manav E, Sakallı S, Canatan Keskin S (August 1, 2026) Comparative Evaluation of Polishing Protocols on the Surface Roughness and Gloss of Additively Manufactured Permanent Resins. European Annals of Dental Sciences 53 2 81–85.

IEEE

[1]E. Yıldırım Manav, S. Sakallı, and S. Canatan Keskin, “Comparative Evaluation of Polishing Protocols on the Surface Roughness and Gloss of Additively Manufactured Permanent Resins”, EADS, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 81–85, Aug. 2026, doi: 10.52037/eads.2026.0013.

ISNAD

Yıldırım Manav, Esra - Sakallı, Sedanur - Canatan Keskin, Simge. “Comparative Evaluation of Polishing Protocols on the Surface Roughness and Gloss of Additively Manufactured Permanent Resins”. European Annals of Dental Sciences 53/2 (August 1, 2026): 81-85. https://doi.org/10.52037/eads.2026.0013.

JAMA

1.Yıldırım Manav E, Sakallı S, Canatan Keskin S. Comparative Evaluation of Polishing Protocols on the Surface Roughness and Gloss of Additively Manufactured Permanent Resins. EADS. 2026;53:81–85.

MLA

Yıldırım Manav, Esra, et al. “Comparative Evaluation of Polishing Protocols on the Surface Roughness and Gloss of Additively Manufactured Permanent Resins”. European Annals of Dental Sciences, vol. 53, no. 2, Aug. 2026, pp. 81-85, doi:10.52037/eads.2026.0013.

Vancouver

1.Esra Yıldırım Manav, Sedanur Sakallı, Simge Canatan Keskin. Comparative Evaluation of Polishing Protocols on the Surface Roughness and Gloss of Additively Manufactured Permanent Resins. EADS. 2026 Aug. 1;53(2):81-5. doi:10.52037/eads.2026.0013