EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF FINISHING AND POLISHING PROTOCOLS ON THE SURFACE ROUGHNESS OF RESTORATIVE MATERIALS

Year 2025, Volume: 52 Issue: 3, 134 - 139

Shadia Majid Abubakary , Akif Demirel , Şaziye Sarı

https://doi.org/10.52037/eads.2025.0020

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of different types of finishing and/or polishing protocols on the surface roughness of two different restorative materials that are frequently preferred in pediatric dentistry.
Materials and Methods: Compomer (Dyract XP) (n=20) and glass hybrid restorative (Equia Forte HT) material discs (n=20) were prepared using metal moulds and initial surface roughness values (Ra) were measured and recorded with a profilometer. Each restorative material was subdivided to 4 groups (n=5) containing different finishing and/or polishing protocols for each restorative material group (Sof-Lex Disc, Sof-Lex Disc+Rubber Bur, Tungsten Carbide Bur and Tungsten Carbide Bur+Rubber Bur). After finishing&polishing procedures, final surface roughness measurements were performed and recorded. Kruskal Wallis-H and Wilcoxon Signed-Rank tests were used to analyze the data. Statistical significance value was taken as 0.05.
Results: According to analyzes performed considering the alteration (ΔRa) between initial and final surface roughness values, no statistically significant difference was found in terms of ΔRa between two restorative materials and their subgroups (p=0.055). Also, final roughness values of compomer samples that were subjected to Tungsten Carbide Bur and Tungsten Carbide Bur+Rubber Bur were found to be significantly higher than initial roughness (p=0.043 and p=0.043, respectively).
Conclusions: It was concluded that finishing and polishing protocols caused similar roughness changes on compomer and glass hybrid restorative material surfaces. However, it was also concluded that compomer surface finished with Tungsten Carbide burs was rougher than initial values.

Keywords

Compomer , ; Glass hybrid restorative , Surface roughness

Ethical Statement

Not required

Supporting Institution

N/A

Project Number

N/A

Thanks

N/A

References

• Lo Giudice A. Advanced Applications in Pediatric Dentistry: A Worldwide Perspective of the Last 13 Years. Children (Basel). 2023;10(10). doi:10.3390/children10101678.
• Rimalovska S. Study of the Dental Practitioners’ Criteria for the Selection of Restorative Materials for Primary Teeth. IJSR. 2020. doi:10.21275/SR20625095824.
• Yap AU, Chung SM, Chow WS, Tsai KT, Lim CT. Fracture resistance of compomer and composite restoratives. Oper Dent. 2004;29(1):29–34.
• Marks LA, Faict N, Welbury RR. Literature review: Restorations of class II cavities in the primary dentition with compomers. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2010;11(3):109–114. doi:10.1007/bf03262725.
• Poornima P, Koley P, Kenchappa M, Nagaveni N, Bharath KP, Neena IE. Comparative evaluation of compressive strength and surface microhardness of EQUIA Forte, resin-modified glass-ionomer cement with conventional glass-ionomer cement. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2019;37(3):265–270. doi:10.4103/JISPPD.JISPPD_342_18.
• Peker O, Bolgul B. Evaluation of surface roughness and color changes of restorative materials used with different polishing procedures in pediatric dentistry. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2023;47(4):72–79. doi:10.22514/jocpd.2023.037.
• Kobayashi M, Koi K, Wiskoski S, Watanabe H, Lewis S, Ferracane JL. Isolated effect of filler particle size on surface properties of experimental resin composites before and after toothbrush abrasion. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2023;35(8):1286–1292. doi:10.1111/jerd.13105.
• Atabek D, Ekçi ES, Bani M, Öztaş N. Farklı Polisaj sistemlerinin kompozit rezinlerin yüzey pürüzlülüğüne etkisi. Acta Odontol Turc. 2016;33(2):69–74. doi:10.17214/aot.99872.
• Aydın EG, Özalp N. Which Finishing And Polishing Technique Is More Effective For Surface Roughness And Microhardness? Cumhuriyet Dent J. 2021;24(1):21–29. doi:10.7126/cumudj.796652.
• Krithikadatta J, Gopikrishna V, Datta M. CRIS Guidelines (Checklist for Reporting In-vitro Studies): A concept note on the need for standardized guidelines for improving quality and transparency in reporting in-vitro studies in experimental dental research. J Conserv Dent. 2014;17(4):301–304. doi:10.4103/0972-0707.136338.
• Ülker O, Yılmaz F. Evaluation of the Effect of different finishing and Polishing systems on Surface Roughness and Color Stability of different restorative materials. J Int Dent Sci. 2021;7(2):16–26.
• Dutra D, Pereira G, Kantorski KZ, Valandro LF, Zanatta FB. Does Finishing and Polishing of Restorative Materials Affect Bacterial Adhesion and Biofilm Formation? A Systematic Review. Oper Dent. 2018;43(1):E37–E52. doi:10.2341/17-073-l.
• Eden E, Cogulu D, Attın T. The effect of finishing and polishing systems on surface roughness, microhardness and microleakage of a nanohybrid composite. J Int Dent Med Res. 2012;5(3):155–160. doi:10.5167/uzh-73270.
• Koupis NS, Marks LA, Verbeeck RM, Martens LC. Review: finishing and polishing procedures of (resin-modified) glass ionomers and compomers in paediatric dentistry. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2007;8(1):22–28. doi:10.1007/bf03262566.
• Mallya PL, Acharya S, Ballal V, Ginjupalli K, Kundabala M, Thomas M. Profilometric study to compare the effectiveness of various finishing and polishing techniques on different restorative glass ionomer cements. J Interdiscip Dent. 2013;3(2):86–90. doi:10.4103/2229-5194.126867.
• Venturini D, Cenci MS, Demarco FF, Camacho GB, Powers JM. Effect of polishing techniques and time on surface roughness, hardness and microleakage of resin composite restorations. Oper Dent. 2006;31(1):11–17. doi:10.2341/04-155.
• 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. doi:10.1055/s-0039-1698951.
• Kritzinger D, Brandt P, De Wet F. The effect of different polishing systems on the surface roughness of a nanocomposite and a microhybrid composite. S Afr Dent J. 2017;72(6):249–257. doi:10.17159/2519-0105/2017/v72no6a1.
• Daud A, Gray G, Lynch CD, Wilson NHF, Blum IR. A randomised controlled study on the use of finishing and polishing systems on different resin composites using 3D contact optical profilometry and scanning electron microscopy. J Dent. 2018;71:25–30. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2018.01.008.
• Münchow EA, Correa MB, Ogliari FA, Piva E, Zanchi CH. Correlation between surface roughness and microhardness of experimental composites with varying filler concentration. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2012;13(3):299–304. doi:10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1141.
• Marigo L, Rizzi M, La Torre G, Rumi G. 3-D surface profile analysis: different finishing methods for resin composites. Oper Dent. 2001;26(6):562–568.
• Pacifici E, Bossù M, Giovannetti A, La Torre G, Guerra F, Polimeni A. Surface roughness of glass ionomer cements indicated for uncooperative patients according to surface protection treatment. Ann Stomatol (Roma). 2014;4(3-4):250.
• Wu SS, Yap AU, Chelvan S, Tan ES. Effect of prophylaxis regimens on surface roughness of glass ionomer cements. Oper Dent. 2005;30(2):180–184.
• Matis BA, Carlson T, Cochran M, Phillips RW. How finishing affects glass ionomers. Results of a five-year evaluation. J Am Dent Assoc. 1991;122(7):43–46. doi:10.14219/jada.archive.1991.0214.
• Yap AU, Lye KW, Sau CW. Surface characteristics of tooth-colored restoratives polished utilizing different polishing systems. Oper Dent. 1997;22(6):260–265.
• Pedrini D, Candido MS, Rodrigues AL. Analysis of surface roughness of glass-ionomer cements and compomer. J Oral Rehabil. 2003;30(7):714–719. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2842.2003.01133.x.
• Bagheri R, Burrow MF, Tyas MJ. Surface characteristics of aesthetic restorative materials—an SEM study. J Oral Rehabil. 2007;34(1):68–76. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2842.2006.01608.x.
• Berastegui E, Canalda C, Brau E, Miquel C. Surface roughness of finished composite resins. J Prosthet Dent. 1992;68(5):742–749. doi:10.1016/0022-3913(92)90195-g.
• Behlau A, Behlau I, Payer M, Leitinger G, Hanscho K, Kqiku L, et al. Effects of Finishing on Surface Roughness of Four Different Glass-Ionomer Cements and One Alkasite: In Vitro Investigation over Time Using Aging Simulation. J Funct Biomater. 2024;15(11):325. doi:10.3390/jfb15110325.