Scholarly article on topic 'Impact of additional polishing on the roughness and surface morphology of dental composite resins'

Impact of additional polishing on the roughness and surface morphology of dental composite resins Academic research paper on "Medical engineering"

CC BY-NC-ND
0
0
Share paper
Keywords
{"Composite resin" / "Dental polishing" / "Surface roughness" / "Dental materials" / "Scanning electron microscopy" / "Resina composta" / "Polimento dentário" / "Rugosidade superficial" / "Materiais dentários" / "Microscopia eletrónica de varredura"}

Abstract of research paper on Medical engineering, author of scientific article — Ana Carla Bezerra de Carvalho Justo Fernandes, Isauremi Vieira de Assunção, Boniek Castillo Dutra Borges, Giovanna de Fátima Alves da Costa

Abstract Objectives This study evaluated the surface roughness and morphology of microfilled (Durafill VS) and nanohybrid (Evolu-X) composite resins submitted to different finishing/polishing systems, with or without further additional polishing. Methods 70 specimens were fabricated and distributed to 14 sample groups (n =5 per group). The Mylar strip (MS) was the control group. Sof-Lex Pop-on (SP) and Praxis TDV (PTDV) were finishing/polishing systems used in the experimental groups. Additional polishing was performed with either a felt disc moistened with diamond paste (FP), or just a silicon carbide brush (SCB). Roughness (Ra) was measured and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images were obtained. Data were subjected to two-way ANOVA and Tukey (p <0.05). Results The SP (0.186 and 0.250μm) finishing/polishing systems produced a smoother surface compared with a PTDV (0.208 and 0.296μm). The Evolu-x (EVO) resin showed lower roughness. After the additional polishing with FP, there was no difference between the resins tested and values of roughness. SEM suggests smoother Durafill VS (DUR) surface when polishing is carried out with PTDV+FP. SP provided an Evolu-x surface with fewer grooves and scratches. Evolu-x surfaces treated with PTDV and SP+SCB had a more irregular topography. Conclusion Furthermore, the FP offered a smoother and uniform texture to the surface of both resins independent of the previous treatment. The SCB offered a smoother texture to the surface of the DUR resin than EVO.

Academic research paper on topic "Impact of additional polishing on the roughness and surface morphology of dental composite resins"

Revista Portuguesa de Estomatologia, Medicina Dentária e Cirurgia Maxilofacial

www.elsevier.pt/spemd

Revista Portuguesa de Estomatología, Medicina Dentária e Cirurgia Maxilofacial

@SPEMD

Original research

Impact of additional polishing on the roughness and surface morphology of dental composite resins

Ana Carla Bezerra de Carvalho Justo Fernandes *, Isauremi Vieira de Assungao, Boniek Castillo Dutra Borges, Giovanna de Fatima Alves da Costa

Department of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN), Brazil

CrossMark

article info

abstract

Article history: Received 20 October 2015 Accepted 16 March 2016 Available online 6 May 2016

Keywords:

Composite resin

Dental polishing

Surface roughness

Dental materials

Scanning electron microscopy

Objectiues:This study evaluated the surface roughness and morphology of microfilled (Durafill VS) and nanohybrid (Evolu-X) composite resins submitted to different finishing/polishing systems, with or without further additional polishing.

Methods: 70 specimens were fabricated and distributed to 14 sample groups (n = 5 per group). The Mylar strip (MS) was the control group. Sof-Lex Pop-on (SP) and Praxis TDV (PTDV) were finishing/polishing systems used in the experimental groups. Additional polishing was performed with either a felt disc moistened with diamond paste (FP), or just a silicon carbide brush (SCB). Roughness (Ra) was measured and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images were obtained. Data were subjected to two-way ANOVA and Tukey (p < 0.05). Results:The SP (0.186 and 0.250 |xm) finishing/polishing systems produced a smoother surface compared with a PTDV (0.208 and 0.296 |im). The Evolu-x (EVO) resin showed lower roughness. After the additional polishing with FP, there was no difference between the resins tested and values of roughness. SEM suggests smoother Durafill VS (DUR) surface when polishing is carried out with PTDV + FP. SP provided an Evolu-x surface with fewer grooves and scratches. Evolu-x surfaces treated with PTDV and SP + SCB had a more irregular topography. Conclusion:Furthermore, the FP offered a smoother and uniform texture to the surface of both resins independent of the previous treatment. The SCB offered a smoother texture to the surface of the DUR resin than EVO.

© 2016 Sociedade Portuguesa de Estomatologia e Medicina Dentária. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license

(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Impacto do polimento adicional na rugosidade e morfología da superfície de resinas compostas

resumo

Palavras-chave: Objetiuos:Este estudo avaliou a rugosidade da superficie e morfologia de resinas compostas,

Resina composta microparticulada (Durafill VS [DUR]) e nano-híbrida (Evolu-X [EVO]), submetidas a diferentes

Polimento dentário sistemas de acabamento/polimento, com ou sem polimento mais adicional.

* Corresponding author. E-mail address: anacarlabcarvalho@hotmail.com (A.C.B. de Carvalho Justo Fernandes). http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.rpemd.2016.03.004

1646-2890/© 2016 Sociedade Portuguesa de Estomatologia e Medicina Dentária. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Rugosidade superficial Materials dentários Microscopia eletrónica de varredura

Métodos:Setenta espécimes foram fabricados e distribuidos para 14 grupos de amostras (n = 5 por grupo). A tira de poliéster (MS) foi o grupo controlo. Sof-lex Pop on (SP) e Práxis TDV (PTDV) foram os sistemas de acabamento/polimento utilizados nos grupos experimentais. Polimento adicional foi realizado com disco de feltro com pasta de diamante (FP) ou somente escova de carboneto de silicio (SCB). Rugosidade (Ra) foi medida e imagens foram obtidas através de microscopia eletrónica de varredura (MEV). Os dados foram submetidos a ANOVA de 2vias e de Tukey (p < 0,05).

ResuItados:O sistema SP (0,186 e 0,250 |xm) de acabamento/polimento produziuuma superficie mais lisa em comparacao com um PTDV (0,208 e 0,296 |im). A resina EVO mostrou menor rugosidade (0,186 e 0,208 |im). Após o polimento adicional com FP, nao houve nenhuma diferenca entre as resinas testadas e os valores de rugosidade (p < 0,05). SEM sugeriu uma superficie mais lisa na DUR quando o polimento foi realizado com PTDV + FP. O sistema SP forneceu para EVO uma superficie mais uniforme, com menos sulcos. No entanto, as superficies tratadas com PTDV e SP + SCB tinham uma topografia mais irregular. ConcIusao:O FP ofereceu uma textura mais lisa e uniforme sobre a superficie de ambas as resinas, independente do tratamento anterior. O SCB ofereceu uma textura mais lisa para a resina DUR do que para a EVO.

© 2016 Sociedade Portuguesa de Estomatologia e Medicina Dentária. Publicado por

Elsevier España, S.L.U. Este é um artigo Open Access sob a licença de CC BY-NC-ND

(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Introduction

A variety of materials are developed to improve polishing and longevity of composite resin restorations. This situation is desirable for dentists and patients because most smooth surfaces prevent biofilm accumulation, gingival irritation, secondary caries and color change.1-3

In esthetic situations, microfilled and nanohybrid composite resins can be used.4 In addition to the concentration and type of filler particles, the monomers present and finishing systems/polishing used are variables that may influence the final surface polishing of composites.5-10 Several studies show that the smoother surface of a resin composite is obtained by Mylar strip,11-17 but the dental anatomy hampers its use. Therefore, some products are commercially available for finishing and polishing, such as burs, rubber, and abrasive discs (containing diamond, aluminum oxide or silicon carbide), which are capable of providing a smooth surface.18-22 Recently, silicon carbide brushes emerged in the market to be used as a final/additional polishing method in composite resins. However, it is not known if additional polishing using silicon carbide brush is able to reduce the surface roughness of microfilled and nanohybrid composites.

This study evaluated the surface roughness and morphology of microfilled and nanohybrid composite resins submitted to different finishing/polishing systems, with or without further additional polishing. The null hypothesis was that there would be no significant differences in surface roughness and morphology of each composite tested after additional polishing.

Materials and methods

Two composite resins were used in this study. The first was microfilled (Durafill VS, Heraeus-Kulzer, Gruner Weg,

Hanau, Germany) and the other was a nanohybrid resin (Evolu-X, Dentsply, Petropolis, RJ, Brazil). The chemical components of these composites are listed in Table 1. A single operator fabricated 35 circular specimens (8 mm diameter, 2 mm height) per composite. A Teflon custom mold was placed on a glass plate and filled with composite. Verification of curing light intensity was performed by the radiometer Demetron (Kerr/Sybron Dental, USA). It was positioned vertically the active tip of the curing light on the central part of the photosensitive area of radiometer and ligated for 20 s. After, the composite surface was then covered with a Mylar strip and photoactivated for 20 s with a Coltolux light-emitting diode (1264mW/cm2 irradiance; Coltene/Whaledent, Altstatten, Switzerland). The 70 specimens were removed from the mold and stored in plastic containers containing distilled water at 37 °C for 24h before finishing/polishing procedures and distributed to 14 sample groups (n = 5 per group).

First, 5 samples of each resin were separated as control. For the remainder, the aluminum oxide discs Sof-Lex Pop-On (3M ESPE Dental Products, St. Paul, MN, USA) and Praxis TDV (TDV Dental Ltda., Pomerode, SC, Brazil) were used, then two additional polishing materials: Felt Discs (TDV Dental Ltda.), Diamond Gloss™ polishing paste (KG Sorensen, Sao Paulo, Brazil and a Silicon Carbide Brush - Astrobrush™ (Ivoclar Vivadent, Amherst, NY, USA) (Tables 1-3). The specimens were divided into groups according to resin type and finishing and polishing systems (n = 5 per group).

All the specimens from groups 2, 3, 4, 9,10 and 11 received treatment with SP, from coarse grains to fine grains, in a total of four grains applied for 30 s. The same procedures were applied for the groups 5, 6, 7, 12, 13 and 14, with PTDV. Each disc was used for only one specimen, washed with air/water spray to remove residues, and dried by air jet. The specimens were subjected to Ultrasonic Cleaner (Unique, Sao Paulo, Brazil; 25 kHz power, 120 W frequency) at the end of the finishing process

Table 1 - Characteristics of the composite resins.

Composites Classification Code Manufacturer Lote # Composition

Resin matrix Filler type Filler content (% by vol)

Durafill® VS Microfilled DUR Heraeus Kulzer, Hanau, Germany 010210 Bis-GMA, UDMA, TEGDMA Silica: 0.02-0.07 ^m 43

Evolu-X Nanohybrid EVO Dentsply, Petrópolis, RJ, Brazil 289449C Bis-GMA, Bis-EMA, TEGDMA Silica A: 10 and 20 nm Silica B: 4-7 nm Other silicates: 0.8 ^m 58

Bis-GMA, bisphenol A glycidyl dimethacrylate; UDMA, urethane dimethacrylate; TEGDMA, triethylene ¡ glycol dimethacrylate; Bis-EMA, bisphenol

A ethoxylate dimethacrylate.

Table 2 - Characteristics of finishing/polishing systems.

Polishing System Manufacturer Abrasive grain type Presentation Color/abrasive grain size

Sof-Lex™ Pop-On 3M ESPE Aluminum oxide 4 discs Brown (17.01 ^m) Orange (7.01 ^m) Light orange (5.72 ^m) Yellow (1.68 ^m)

Praxis TDV TDV Dental Ltda. Aluminum oxide 4 discs Dark green (103 ^m) Light green (53 ^m) Yellow (24 ^m) White (18 ^m)

Table 3 - Characteristics of additional polishing systems.

Polishing system Manufacturer Abrasive grain type Presentation

Dimond paste (Diamond Gloss™) KG Sorensen Silicon carbide brush (AstrobrushTM) Ivoclar Vivadent, New York, USA Nanoparticles of diamonds Silicon carbide particles Syringe (2 g) Brush (7 mm diameter)

for 3 min between the uses of progressively smoother discs to remove particles left by the previous disc. Only groups 3, 6,10 and 13 were subject to additional polishing with FP, and groups 4, 7,11 and 14 with SCB.

All the specimens polished with FP received a 4mg portion of Diamond Gloss™ polishing paste, with the felt disc, then discarded after use. Those specimens and the ones polished only with SCB received the same protocol for periodic

movements, at low speed, for 30 s, unrefrigerated, in one direction.

To measure the surface roughness of the specimens, a surface rugosimeter (Surtronic 25 TaylorHobson®, Cerdanyola Del Vallès, Barcelona, Spain) was used, with a 0.25 mm cutoff value and 2 mm tracing length. Three measurements were recorded in different locations, and the average surface roughness (Ra) was determined for each specimen.

Table 4 - Surface roughness means (Ra) in ^m and standard deviations of composite resins according to different

finishing and polishing methods and additional polishing.

Finishing/polishing method Dental composite resin

Group Evolu-x Group Durafill VS

MS 1 0.120 ± 0.04 Aab 8 0.082 ± 0.01 Ad

SP 2 0.186 ± 0.05 Bab 9 0.250 ± 0.11 Aab

SP + FP 3 0.112 ± 0.04 Ab 10 0.112 ± 0.02 Acd

SP+SCB 4 0.168 ± 0.04 Aab 11 0.132 ± 0.03 Acd

PTDV 5 0.208 ± 0.04 Ba 12 0.296 ± 0.08 Aa

PTDV + FP 6 0.132 ± 0.02 Aab 13 0.130 ± 0.03 Acd

PTDV + SCB 7 0.210 ± 0.04 Aa 14 0.196 ± 0.03 Abc

MS, Mylar strip; SP, Sof-Lex Pop-On; PTDV, Praxis TDV; FP, felt disc associated to diamond paste; SCB, silicon carbide brush. Different letters

indicate statistically sig gnificant differences among the ; groups (p < 0.05): lowercase letters, comparison among dental composite resins in a same

finishing and polishing ; system; uppercase letters, comparison among the finishing and polishing agents in a same composite resin.

Figure 1 - Scanning electronic photomicrographs showing a rougher surface for Evolu-X resin. (A) EVO + SP; (B) EVO + PTDV; (C) EVO + SP + FP; (D) EVO + PTDV + FP; (E) EVO + SP + SCB; (F) EVO + PTDV + SCB.

One specimen of each group was randomly assigned for scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis. The specimens were fixed in metallic stubs, sputter-coated with gold (MED 010, Baltec, Balzers, Leichtenstein) and observed with a scanning electron microscope (SSX-550 Shimadzu Superscan, Bangrak, Bangkok, Thailand). Representative images were obtained with 300 x magnification.

The roughness data was analyzed using analysis of variance and Tukey's post hoc test (p<0.05). Statistical tests were

performed using Assistat software (version 7.6 beta 2013, Campina Grande, PB, Brazil).

Results

There were statistically significant differences (Ra) in the interaction between "composite resins" and "finishing/polishing

Figure 2 - Scanning electronic photomicrographs showing a rougher surface for Durafill VS resin. (A) DUR + SP; (B) DUR + PTDV; (C) DUR + SP + FP; (D) DUR + PTDV + FP; (E) DUR + SP + SCB; (F) DUR + PTDV + SCB.

methods" (p < 0.05). Comparisons among the groups are listed in Table 4.

When only traditional aluminum oxide discs were used, Durafill VS dental composite resin (0.250 and 0.296 ^m) showed a statistically rougher surface than Evolu-X (0.186 and 0.208 ^m). On the other hand, the use of additional polishing methods provided statistically similar roughness to both dental composite resins (p <0.05).

For Evolu-X, the use of additional polishing methods (0.112, 0.168, 0.132 and 0.210 ^m) provided statistically better roughness values than those subjected to aluminum

oxide discs only, SP (0.186 ^m) and PTDV (0.208 ^m). However, FP (0.112 and 0.132 ^m) provided a statistically less rough surface than SCB (0.168 and 0.210 ^m), either for SP or PTDV. PTDV (0.208 ^m) and PTDV + SCB (0.210 ^m) groups presented the statistically highest roughness values, while the SP + FP (0.112 ^m) group presented the statistically lowest values.

For Durafill VS, the use of additional polishing methods provided statistically less rough values to samples subjected to SP or PTDV. The groups: SP + FP (0.112 ^m), SP + SCB (0.132 ^m) and PTDV + FP (0.130 ^m), provided

statistically similar roughness values (p <0.05). PTDV group (0.296 ^m) showed the statistically highest roughness values, while MS (0.082 ^m) showed the statistically lowest values.

According to the analysis operator, electron microscopy suggests smoother Durafill VS surface when polishing is carried out with PTDV + FP in comparison to other methods (Figure 2). SP provided an Evolu-x surface with fewer grooves (Figure 1). Evolu-x surfaces treated with PTDV and SP + SCB had a more irregular topography (Figure 1). The photographs by SEM in this study were used to assist the results of the quantitative method (Figures 1 and 2).

Discussion

This study investigated the surface roughness of an anterior only (DUR) and a universal composite resin (EVO). Since statistically significant differences among Ra values of each composite tested after additional polishing, the null hypothesis was rejected.

The Mylar strip was previously used on the surface of composites as a control group. This was done because it is a standard method in most studies to produce the smoothest surface.23-28 However, this method is not commonly used in clinical practice because the correct anatomical contour of the restoration is rarely achieved using only a Mylar strip.29-31 Moreover, the high content of submerging organic matrix promotes an insufficient polymerization, which results in reduced hardness and discoloration of the surface.32

Therefore, the finishing/polishing of composites is critical to obtaining resistance, color stability, longevity and esthetics of the restorations.22,33-36 Care must be taken during and after the restorative treatment because Ra values may exceed the critical limit of surface roughness for bacterial adhesion (0.20 ^m), so that composite restorations need to be polished again over time.37

The two finishing/polishing systems composed of four aluminum oxide discs (SP and PTDV) have abrasive particles of different sizes between them. Therefore, we wanted to know whether this difference in superficial roughness was enough to overcome the critical value for bacterial adhesion. It was observed that for both composites tested, the SP group has enhanced surface smoothness when compared to PTDV system. But in general, all the means within the standard deviation limit were above the critical value for bacterial adhesion. This result underscores the need for additional polishing after use of studied aluminum oxide discs.

According to a previous study,24 the texture of the final surface is dependent on the technique and material used. However, there is no consensus as to the material and technique that provides the smoothest surfaces for each type of composite used.22 Therefore, two additional polishing systems were tested: the SCB, which is an inexpensive, reusable, recent material on the market, as well as the FP, which highlights the presence of diamond nanoparticles in the composition of the polishing paste.

After the Turkey test, it was found that the FP decreased the surface roughness of the two composites after the use of both aluminum oxide disc systems. This result can be attributed to

the presence of nanoparticles in the composition of the material, which wore down the varying sizes of filler particles which were not uniform within the organic matrix after using the SP or PTDV. The format of the material, which is paste, may also have influenced this wear, favoring the sliding of the particles across the surface.

The statistical test also indicated that there was no difference between SP and SP + SCB at DUR (microfilled resin), which reinforces the conclusions of a previous study18 with the same resin. This result indicates that the lowest amount of charge present in this resin allows various types of abrasive particles of different sizes and provides efficient polishing. However, a higher amount of organic matrix volume causes this resin to have lower mechanical strength and less color stability, which requires short-term re-polishing with respect to EVO resin.

The morphology of the surfaces is often viewed by SEM.38-41 The photomicrographs obtained in this study offer the professional qualitative analysis as an aid to the quantitative method profilometer to characterize the surface in order to identify the best method of finishing and polishing to be used in each restorative material.

The results of this study provide information about the surface properties of composite resins and the finishing/polishing materials tested. The comparison of Ra and surface wear after treatment in a simulated brushing machine can be another valuable and desirable approach to better understand the surface characteristics of long-term composites.42

One limitation of this study is that the Ra is a sensitive parameter to the peaks and isolated valleys. Another roughness parameter which on theoretical grounds can be supposed to give valuable information on the quality of a rough surface is kurtosis.43 More long-term studies in vitro and in vivo are needed, with a greater variety of composite resins and their performance in clinical practice.

Conclusion

Additional polishing after the use of abrasive discs improved the surface roughness of both composite resins tested. Furthermore, the FP offered a smoother and uniform texture to the surface of both resins, regardless of the previous abrasive disc used. The SCB offered a smoother texture to the surface of the DUR resin than EVO.

Ethical disclosures

Protection of human and animal subjects. The authors declare that no experiments were performed on humans or animals for this study.

Confidentiality of data. The authors declare that no patient data appear in this article.

Right to privacy and informed consent. The authors declare that no patient data appear in this article.

Conflicts of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

references

1. Yildiz E, Sirin Karaarslan E, Simsek M, Ozsevik AS, Usumez A. Color stability and surface roughness of polished anterior restorative materials. Dent Mater J. 2015. Available from: https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/dmj/advpub/0/advpub_ 2014-344/_pdf [cited 10.07.15].

2. Festuccia MSCC, Garcia LFR, Cruvinel DR, Pires De Souza FC. Color stability, surface roughness and microhardness of composites submitted to mouth rinsing action. J Appl Oral Sci. 2012;20:200-5.

3. Hervas-Garcia A, Martinez-Lozano MA, Cabanes-Vila J, Barjau-Escribano A, Fos-Galve P.Composite resins. A review of the materials and clinical indications. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2006;11:215-20.

4. Dennison JB, Fan PL, Powers JM. Surface roughness of microfilled composites. J Am Dent Assoc. 1981;102: 859-62.

5. Yap AU, Lye KW, Sau CW. Surface characteristics of tooth-colored restoratives polished utilizing different polishing systems. Oper Dent. 1997;22:260-5.

6. Ergucu Z, Turkun LS. Surface roughness of novel resin composites polished with one-step systems. Oper Dent. 2007;32:185-92.

7. Ozgunaltay G, Yazici AR, Gorucu J. Effect of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface roughness of new tooth-colored restoratives. J Oral Rehabil. 2003;30: 218-24.

8. Scheibe KG, Almeida KG, Medeiros IS, Costa JF, Alves CM. Effect of different polishing systems on the surface roughness of microhybrid composites. J Appl Oral Sci. 2009;17:

9. Marghalani HY. Effect of finishing/polishing systems on the surface roughness of novel posterior composites. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2010;22:127-38.

10. 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:e9-17.

11. Attar N. The effect of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface roughness of composite resin materials.

J Contemp Dent Pract. 2007;8:27-35.

12. Uctasli MB, Arisu HD, Omurlu H, Eliguzeloglu E, Ozcan S, Ergun G. The effect of different finishing and polishing systems on the surface roughness of different composite restorative materials. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2007;8: 89-96.

13. 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;6:198-205.

14. Giacomelli L, Derchi G, Frustaci A, Bruno O, Covani U, Barone A, et al. Surface roughness of commercial composites after different polishing protocols: an analysis with atomic force microscopy. Open Dent J. 2010;4:191-4.

15. Yazici AR, Tuncer D, Antonson S, Onen A, Kilinc E. Effects of delayed finishing/polishing on surface roughness, hardness and gloss of tooth-colored restorative materials. Eur J Dent. 2010;4:50-6.

16. Turssi CP, Saad JR, Duarte SL Jr, Rodrigues AL Jr. Composite surfaces after finishing and polishing techniques. Am J Dent. 2000;13:136-8.

17. Baseren M. Surface roughness of nanofill and nanohybrid composite resin and ormocer based tooth coloured restorative materials after several finishing and polishing procedures. J Biomater Appl. 2004;19:121-34.

18. St Germain H, Samuelson BA. Surface characteristics of resin composite materials after finishing and polishing. Gen Dent. 2015;63:26-32.

19. Jeffries SR. Abrasive finishing and polishing in restorative dentistry: a state-of-the-art review. Dent Clin N Am. 2007;51:379-97.

20. Jung M, Eichelberger K, Klimek J. Surface geometry of four nanofiller and one hybrid composite after one-step and multiple-step polishing. Oper Dent. 2007;32:

347-55.

21. 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;19:214-26.

22. 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;31:11-7.

23. Reis AF, Giannini M, Lovadino JR, Dias CTS. The effect of six polishing systems on the surface roughness of tw packable resin-based composites. Am J Dent. 2002;15:

193-7.

24. Schmitt VL, Puppin-Rontani RM, Naufel FS, Nahsan FPS, Sinhoreti MAC, Baseggio W.Effect of the polishing procedures on color stability and surface roughness of composite resins. ISRN Dent. 2011:617-72.

25. Goldstein GR, Wakinine S. Surface roughness evaluation of composite resin polishing techniques. Quintessence Int. 1989;20:199-204.

26. Setcos JC, Tarim B, Suzuki S. Surface finish produced on resin composites by new polishing systems. Quintessence Int. 1999;30:169-73.

27. Roeder LB, Tate WH, Powers JM. Effect of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface roughness of the packable composite. Oper Dent. 2000;25:534-43.

28. Ferreira PM, Souto SHA, Borges BCD, Assuncao IV, Costa GFA. Impact of a novel polishing method on the surface roughness and micromorphology of nanofilled and microhybrid composite resins. Rev Port Estomatol Med Dent Cir Maxilofac. 2015;56:18-24.

29. Nagem FH, D'Azevedo MT, Nagem HD, Marsola FP. Surface roughness of composit resins after finishing and polishing. Braz Dent J. 2003;14:37-41.

30. Yap AUJ, Sau CW, Lye KW. Effects of finishing time on surface characteristics of tooth-coloured restoratives. J Oral Rehabil. 1998;25:456-61.

31. Bagheri R, Burrow MF, Tyas MJ. Surface characteristics of aesthetic restorative materials - an SEM study. J Oral Rehabil. 2007;34:68-76.

32. Al-Fawaz AA, Awilya Y.The effect of three finishing systems on three esthetic restorative materials. Saudi Dent J. 2003;15:104-7.

33. Park SH, Krejci I, Lutz F. Hardness of celluloid strip-finished or polished composite surfaces with time. J Prosthet Dent. 2000;83:660-3.

34. 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;22:146-65.

35. Turssi CP, Ferracane JL, Serra MC. Abrasive wear of resin composites as related to finishing and polishing procedures. Dent Mater. 2005;21:641-8.

36. Paravina RD, Roeder L, Lu H, Vogel K, Powers JM. Effect of finishing and polishing procedures on surface roughness: gloss and color of resin-based composites. Am J Dent. 2004;17:262-6.

37. Uppal M, Ganesh A, Balagopal S, Kaur G. Profilometric analysis of two composite resins' surface repolished after

tooth brush abrasion with three polishing systems. J Conserv Dent. 2013;16:309-13.

38. Ereifej N, Oweis Y,Eliades G. The effect of polishing technique on 3-D surface roughness and gloss of dental restorative resin composites. Oper Dent. 2013;38:E1-12.

39. 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: 213-23.

40. Senawongse P, Pongprueksa P.Surface roughness of nanofill and nanohybrid resin composites after polishing and brushing. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2007;19:265-73.

41. Lefever D, Perakis N, Roig M, Krejci I, Ardu S. The effect of toothbrushing on surface gloss of resin composites. Am J Dent. 2012;25:54-8.

42. Kamonkhantikul K, Arksornnukit M, Takahashi H, Kanehira M, Finger WJ. Polishing and toothbrushing alters the surface roughness and gloss of composite resins. Dent Mater J. 2014;33:599-606.

43. Hansson KN, Hansson S. Skewness and kurtosis: important parameters in the characterization of dental implant surface roughness - a computer simulation. ISRN Mater Sci. 2011;2011, http://dx.doi.org/10.5402/2011/305312. Article ID 305312, 6 pp.