The effect of six polishing systems on the surface roughness of two ...

<strong>The</strong> <strong>effect</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>six</strong> <strong>polishing</strong> <strong>systems</strong> on the surface roughness
<strong>of</strong> two packable resin-based composites
ANDREFIGUEIREDOREIS, DOS, MARCELO GIANNINI, DDS, MS, PHO, JOSE ROBERTO Loy ADINO, DDS, MS, PHO,
CARLOSTADEUDOSSANTOSDIAS, PHO
ABSTRACT: Purpose: To evaluate the surface roughness <strong>of</strong> two packable composites after finishing and <strong>polishing</strong> with
<strong>six</strong> different <strong>systems</strong>. Materials and Methods: Solitaire and Alert composite samples were prepared and polished with
Poli I and Poli II aluminum oxide pastes, Ultralap diamond paste, Enhance finishing points, Politip rubber polishers,
fine and extra fine diamond burs, and 30-blade tungsten carbide burs according to the manufacturers' instructions. <strong>The</strong>
polished surfaces were then evaluated with a pr<strong>of</strong>ilometer and a scanning electron microscope. Results: Solitaire composite
resin presented the smoothest surfaces when polished with Poli I and II aluminum oxide pastes, Ultralap diamond
paste, Politip finishing points and 30-blade tungsten carbide burs. <strong>The</strong> smoothest surfaces for Alert composite were evident
with the 30-blade tungsten carbide burs. (Am J Dent 2002; 15: 193-197).
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Alert displayed a significantly greater surface roughness than Solitaire for most <strong>of</strong> the agents
used. <strong>The</strong> smoothest surfaces for Solitaire were attained with <strong>polishing</strong> pastes, 30-blade carbide burs and Politip.
Carbide burs provided the best finish for Alert.
CORRESPONDENCE: Dr. Andre Figueiredo Reis, Department <strong>of</strong> Restorative Dentistry, Piracicaba School <strong>of</strong> Dentistry,
Campinas State University, Av. Limeira, 901, Piracicaba/SP, Brazil, CEP 13414-018, Fax: 55 194305218, E-mail:
reisandre@yahoo.com
Since resin-based composites were introduced to dentistry,1
no other restorative material has been modified and
improved at a similar rate. Despite all initial inherent problems
<strong>of</strong> the composites, many dentists attempted to use these
materials to restore posterior teeth, and perhaps the greatest
effort to improve composites has been the generation <strong>of</strong> materials
for occlusal surfaces. 2 - 4
Problems with the early composite formulations, such as
percentage <strong>of</strong> filler and particle size leading high wear rates,
loss <strong>of</strong> anatomic form and poor polishability convinced researchers
that early composite formulations were unacceptable
for restoring posterior teeth. 5 - 7 <strong>The</strong> increase <strong>of</strong> the filler
loading percentage, the modification and reduction on the
particles size, that initially had 12 11m,and their better distribution
in the resin matrix, contributed to reduce the wear
rates 8 - 1O and to improve the surface smoothness <strong>of</strong> these restorative
materials. ,11,12
Numerous studies have been developed and notable progress
has been achieved in the attempt to improve the physical
and handling characteristics <strong>of</strong> posterior composites. New
formulations possess packable characteristics similar to amalgam
manipulative properties, due to new filler types, which
consist <strong>of</strong> micro filament glass fibers or more coarse and textured
fillers than conventional ones. 3 ,13 <strong>The</strong> use <strong>of</strong> these composites,
in conjunction with bonding agents and following
correct clinical techniques, has allowed dentists to place reli-
abl e postenor . resm- . bond ed restorations.' . 3 13-15H owever, there
is no con.;ensus on which finishing and <strong>polishing</strong> materials
provide the smoothest surfaces for packable composites.
Proper fmishing and <strong>polishing</strong> <strong>of</strong> posterior composite
restorations are important steps that enhance both esthetics
and longevity <strong>of</strong> restored teeth. 16.17Surface roughness, associated
with improper fmishing and <strong>polishing</strong> can result in ex-
cessive surface stammg, increased wear rates and plaque
accumulation, which compromise the clinical performance <strong>of</strong>
the restoration. 18-22
Most investigators agree that the aluminum oxide discs are
the fmishing and <strong>polishing</strong> agents that produce the lowest
surface roughness average (Ra) on resin-based composites;23-
28however, -their use is restricted to anterior teeth. Regarding
this limitation, a wide variety <strong>of</strong> finishing and <strong>polishing</strong> devices
are available to the clinician: multifluted tungsten carbide
burs, diamond burs, white stones, rubber points, aluminum
oxide pastes, and diamond pastes. 16,17
This study compared the <strong>effect</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>six</strong> different finishing
and <strong>polishing</strong> agents on the surface roughness <strong>of</strong> two packable
resin-based composites and to observe their polished
surfaces with a scanning electron microscope.
<strong>The</strong> packable resin-based composites used in this study
were Solitaire" and Alert, b and the <strong>polishing</strong> <strong>systems</strong> were
aluminum oxide pastes (Poli I and Poli lIe), diamond paste
(Ultralapd), rubber polishers (Enhance e and Politipf), diamond
fmishing burs (fme and extra fme g ), and 30-blade tungsten
carbide burs. h <strong>The</strong> composition and characteristics <strong>of</strong> the
resins and fmishing and <strong>polishing</strong> <strong>systems</strong> are listed in Tables
1 and 2, respectively.
Thirty cylindrical specimens (3 mm thick and 5 mm in
diameter) <strong>of</strong> each composite were prepared in a polytetrafluorethylene
split mold. <strong>The</strong> cavity was filled, using an amalgam
plugger, and cured for 40 seconds with a visible light-curing
unit.' <strong>The</strong> specimens were stored in distilled water at 37°C for
24 hours and then randomly assigned to one <strong>of</strong> the <strong>six</strong> test
groups (n=5), fmished and polished by a single investigator.
<strong>The</strong> pastes (Ultralap and Poli IIPoli II) and rubber polishers
(Enhance and Politip) were applied using a low-speed

6 in diameter and 60-80 in
length (glass fiber),
0.8 (irregular-shaped filler)
Product Type Abrasive
Poli I and Poli II Paste Aluminum oxide
Ultralap Paste Ultrafine diamonds
Silicon dioxide, fluoride-bariumaluminum-borosilicate
glass,
fluoride aluminumsilicate glass
Micr<strong>of</strong>ilamentous glass fiber,
silicon dioxide, barium-borosilicate
glass, micr<strong>of</strong>ine silica
Enhance Rubber point Aluminum oxide, silanized
pyrolytic silica
Politip Rubber point Silicon dioxide
Diamond bur Diamond bur UltTafine diamonds
F and FF
30-blade multi fluted Carbide bur Tungsten carbides
carbide bur
handpiece for 30 seconds, and felt wheels were used for the
application <strong>of</strong> the pastes. High-speed 30-blade tungsten carbide
burs and diamond fmishing burs were applied for 15
seconds with water coolant.
After all specimens were polished, they were thorougWy
rinsed with water and allowed to dry for 24 hours before
measurement <strong>of</strong> the average surface roughness (Ra). To measure
the surface roughness <strong>of</strong> the specimens a pr<strong>of</strong>Jlometeri was
used. Three measurements in different directions were recorded
for the five specimens in each group, the mean Ra value was
determined for each specimen, and an overall Ra was
determined for the total sample. <strong>The</strong> results were analyzed
statistically by 2 x 6 factorial ANaVA and Duncan's multiple
range test at the 0.05 level <strong>of</strong> significance (Tables 3, 4).
After the pr<strong>of</strong>ilometric examination, two samples <strong>of</strong> each
group were prepared for the scanning electron microscope
(DSM-940A k ). Samples were sputter coated with gold to a
thickness <strong>of</strong> approximately 50A in a vacuum evaporator
(MED 010'). <strong>The</strong> samples were observed and photographs <strong>of</strong>
the most representative regions were taken.
<strong>The</strong> average Ra measurements for combinations <strong>of</strong>
composites and <strong>polishing</strong> instruments are presented in Fig. 1
and Table 4, respectively. <strong>The</strong> smoothest surfaces for Solitaire
resin were recorded with Poli I and Poli II aluminum oxide
pastes, Ultralap diamond paste, Politip finishing point, and 30blade
tungsten carbide bur. No statistically significant
differences were observed among them (P>0.05). Regarding
Alert composite, the smoothest surfaces were evident with 30blade
tungsten carbide burs (P

Aluminum oxide
pastes
Fig. 1. Surface roughness average (Ra-~m) produced by the finishing and
<strong>polishing</strong> instruments.
Fig. 3. Alert composite and an aluminum oxide paste-produced surface. <strong>The</strong>
bar denotes 20 ~m. (SEM x500.)
<strong>The</strong> differences in surface topography between Solitaire
and Alert may be attributed to differences in their interparticle
spacing and their filler particle· size. Solitaire composite resin,
in which particle size varies from 0.7 to 2.0 ~m, presented the
lowest surface roughness averages, whereas Alert composite,
which is composed <strong>of</strong> bigger particles, varying from 0.8 to 80
11m,recorded the greatest roughness.
For a composite finishing system to be <strong>effect</strong>ive, the cutting
particles (abrasive) must be relatively harder than the
filler materials. 34 Otherwise, the <strong>polishing</strong> agent will only
remove the s<strong>of</strong>t resin matrix and leave the filler particles
protruding from the surface. 25 <strong>The</strong> hardness <strong>of</strong> aluminum
oxide is significantly higher than that <strong>of</strong> silicon dioxide, and
generally, higher than most filler materials used in composite
formulations. 38 ,39
<strong>The</strong> aluminum oxide and diamond pastes produced
smooth surfaces on the Solitaire composite. However, the
surface roughness <strong>of</strong> Alert composite was considerably
greater when these pastes were used. Thus, <strong>polishing</strong> pastes
were unsatisfactory for <strong>polishing</strong> the Alert composite, as they
Fig. 2. Solitaire composite and an aluminum oxide paste-produced surface. <strong>The</strong>
bar denotes 20 ~m. (SEM x500.).
Fig. 4. Solitaire composite and a diamond bur-produced surface. <strong>The</strong> bar denotes
20 ~m. (SEM XSOO.)
caused preferential removal <strong>of</strong> resin matrix, resulting in exposure
<strong>of</strong> the micr<strong>of</strong>ilamentous glass fibers, which have about 6
11min diameter and 60 to 80 11min length (Figs. 2, 3).
As expected, the diamond finishing points and the Enhance
finishing system produced rough surfaces on both composites.1
7 ,23,38,40 When diamond points were applied, scratches
were observed on the surface <strong>of</strong> the composites (Fig. 4). <strong>The</strong>
surfaces polished v.ith the Enhance finishing points presented
some pitting, which may have been due to plucking <strong>of</strong> the
filler particles during <strong>polishing</strong>. <strong>The</strong> pits were proportional to
filler sizes (Fig. 5).
Thirty-fluted tungsten carbide burs are considered to be
intermediate finishing devices. 16,41 Nevertheless, they were
the finishing and <strong>polishing</strong> devices that recorded the best
results for Alert (Fig. 6) and were among the best polishers
for Solitaire, showing no need <strong>of</strong> fmal <strong>polishing</strong> with any
other device. As they are used in high speed, the clinician
must be attentive to the pressure applied and to use water
cooling not to damage the anatomic form <strong>of</strong> the restoration
nor the adjacent sound enamel.

Fig. 5. Alert composite and an Enhance-produced surface. <strong>The</strong> bar denotes 20
11m.(SEM x500.)
Silicon dioxide, one <strong>of</strong> the filler types <strong>of</strong> the packable
composites studied in this paper, is also present on the
Politip's composition. According to Tjan & Chan,25 these
rubber polishers were found to be <strong>effect</strong>ive on micro filled
composites and possibly on small-particle hybrid composites,
which can explain the good results obtained when they were
applied on the Solitaire composite surfaces. When the Alert
composite was polished with the Politip rubber polishers, the
results were not as good as for the Solitaire composite, probably
due to the large filler particle size. However, these rubber
polishers recorded the second best surface roughness average
for the Alert composite.
<strong>The</strong> results suggested that each composite requires specific
finishing and <strong>polishing</strong> devices, depending on the size,
hardness and amount <strong>of</strong> filler <strong>of</strong> the composite used. Carbide
burs provided the best finish for the larger particle packable
Alert, and, for Solitaire, all were comparable except diamond
burs and Enhance, which produced the roughest surface. For
most <strong>of</strong> the <strong>polishing</strong> techniques a significantly smoother
fmish was obtained for Solitaire.
Further studies should evaluate the results <strong>of</strong> different
composite <strong>polishing</strong> <strong>systems</strong> on different resin-based composites.
a. Heraeus Kulzer, Wehrheim!TS, Germany.
b. Jeneric/Pentron, Wallingford, CT, USA.
c. Kota, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.
d. Moyco Union Broach, York, PA, USA.
e. Dentsply/Caulk, Milford, DE, USA.
f. Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein.
g. KG-Sorensen, Barneri, SP, Brazil.
h. Beavers Dental, Morrisburg, Ontario, Canada.
i. Degussa Hills, Frankfurt, Germany.
j. Mitutoyo, Tokyo, Japan.
k. Zeiss, Munich, Germany.
I. Balzers Union, Balzers, Liechtenstein.
Acknowiedgnwus: This study was supported by FAPESP (Grant 98115535-5). <strong>The</strong>
authors are indebted to Pr<strong>of</strong>. E. W. Kitajima (NAP-MEP AlESALQ-USP).
Dr. Reis is a Research Assistant, Dr. Giannini is Assistant Pr<strong>of</strong>essor & Dr.
Lovadino is Assistant Pr<strong>of</strong>essor, Department <strong>of</strong> Restorative Dentistry, Piracicaba
School <strong>of</strong> Dentistry, Camp in as State University, SP, Brazil. Dr. Dias is
Assistant Pr<strong>of</strong>essor, Department <strong>of</strong> Mathematics and Statistics, ESALQ,
University <strong>of</strong> Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Fig. 6. Alert composite and a thirty-fluted tungsten carbide bur-produced surface.
<strong>The</strong> bar denotes 20 11m (SEM x500.)
1. Bowen RL. Dental filling material comprising vinyl-silane-treated fused
silica and a binder consisting <strong>of</strong> the reaction product <strong>of</strong> bysphenol and
glycidil methacrylate. US Patent 3,006,112, 1962.
2. Leinfelder KF. Posterior composites. State-<strong>of</strong>-the-art clinical applications.
Dent Clin N Am 1993; 37: 411-418.
3. Leinfelder KF. A report on a new condensable composite resin. Compend
Cantin Educ Dent 1998; 19: 230-237.
4. Leinfelder KF, Bayne SC, Swift EJ Jr. Packable composites: Overview
and technical considerations. J Esthet Dent 1999; II: 234-249.
5. Phillips RW, Avery DR,Mehra R, et af. Observations on a composite
resin for Class 11 restorations: Two-year report. J Prosthet Dent 1972;
28: 164-169.
6. Eames WB, Strain JD, Weitman RT, et ai. Clinical comparison <strong>of</strong>
composite, amalgam and silicate restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 1974; 89:
1111-1117.
7. Leinfelder KF, Sluder TB, Santos JFF, et ai. Five-year clinical evaluation
<strong>of</strong> anterior and posterior restorations <strong>of</strong> composite resin. Oper Dent
1980; 5: 57-65.
8. Leinfelder KF. Posterior composite resins: <strong>The</strong> materials and their
clinical performance. JAm Dent Assoc 1995; 126: 663-676.
9. Willems G, Lambrechts P, Lesaffre E, et af. Three-year follow-up <strong>of</strong> five
posterior composites: In vivo wear results. J Dent 1993; 21: 79-86.
10. Lambrechts P, Braem M, Vanherle G. Evaluation <strong>of</strong> clinical performance for
posterior composite resins and dentin adhesives. Oper Dent 1987; 12: 53-78.
II. Wendt SL, Leinfelder KF. Clinical evaluation <strong>of</strong> a posterior composite
resin: 3-year results. Am J Dent 1994; 7: 207-211.
12. Bayne SC, Heyman HO, Swift Jr EJ. Update on dental composite
restorations. JAm Dent Assoc 1994; 125: 687-701.
13. lazetti G, Burgess 10, Gardiner 0, et ai. Color stability <strong>of</strong> fluoridecontaining
restorative materials. Oper Dent 2000; 25:520-525.
14. Perry R, Kugel G, Leinfelder Ie. One-year clinical evaluation <strong>of</strong> SureFil
packable composite. Compend Cantin Educ Dent 1999; 20: 544-550.
15. Jackson RD, Morgan M. <strong>The</strong> new posterior resins and a simplified
placement technique. J Am Dent Assoc 2000; 131: 375-383.
16. Jefferies SR. <strong>The</strong> art and science <strong>of</strong> abrasive finishing and <strong>polishing</strong> in
restorative dentistry. Dent Clin N Am 1998; 42: 613-627.
17. Goldstein RE. Finishing <strong>of</strong> composites and laminates. Dent Clin N Am
1989; 33: 305-318.
18. Dietschi D, Campanile G, Holz J, et ai. Comparison <strong>of</strong> the color stability
<strong>of</strong> ten new-generation composites: An in vitro study. Dent Mater 1994;
10: 352-262.
19. Setcos JC, Tarim B, Suzuki S. Surface finish produced on resin composites
by new <strong>polishing</strong> <strong>systems</strong>. Quintessence Int 1999; 30: 169-173.
20. Weitman RT, Eames WB. Plaque accumulation on composite resin
surfaces after various finishing procedures. J Am Dent Assoc 1975; 91:
101-106.
21. Chan KC, Fuller JL, Hormati AA. <strong>The</strong> ability <strong>of</strong> food to stain two
composites. J Prosthet Dent 1980; 43: 542-545.

22. lalkind MM, Keisar 0, Ever-Hadani P, et al. Accumulation <strong>of</strong>
Streptococcus mu/ans on light-cured composites and amalgam: An in
vitro study. J Esthe/ Denl 1998; 10: 187-190.
23. Berastegui E, e/ al. Surface roughness <strong>of</strong> finished composites resins. J
Proslhel Den11992; 68: 742-749.
24. Stoddard JW, Johnson GH. An evaluation <strong>of</strong> <strong>polishing</strong> agents for composite
resins.J Pros/hetDenI1991; 65: 491-495.
25. Tjan AHL, Chan CA. <strong>The</strong> polishability <strong>of</strong> posterior composites. J Proslhel
Den11989; 61: 138-146.
26. Van Noort R, Davis LG. <strong>The</strong> surface finish <strong>of</strong> composite resin restorative
materials. Br Den/Jl984; 157: 360-364,1984.
27. Wilson F, Heath JR, Watts DC. Finishing composite restorative materials. J
Oral Rehabill990; 17: 79-87.
28. Toledano M, De La Torre FJ, Osorio R. Evaluation <strong>of</strong> two <strong>polishing</strong> methods
for resin composites. Am J Den11994; 7: 328-330.
29. GIants PO, Larson LA. Surface roughness <strong>of</strong> composite resins before and
after finishing. Acla Odonlol Scand 1972; 30: 335.
30. McLundie AC, Murray FD. Comparison <strong>of</strong> methods used in finishing
composite resin. A scanning electron microscope study. J Proslhel Dent
1974; 31: 164-171.
31. Lee HL, Swartz ML. Scanning electron microscope study <strong>of</strong> composite
restorative materials. J Dent Res 1970; 49: 149-158.
32. Maccchi RL, Craig RG. Physical and mechanical properties <strong>of</strong> composite
restorative materials. JAm Dent Assoc 1969; 78: 328.
33. McCabe JF, Chen C, Caddick RJK. <strong>The</strong> finishing <strong>of</strong> composite restorations.
BrDentJl978; 145: 101-104.
34. Chandler HH, Bowen RL, Paffenbarger GC. Method for finishing composite
restorative materials. JAm Dent Assoc 1971; 83: 344-348.
35. Heath JR, Wilson HJ. Surface roughness <strong>of</strong>restorations. Br Dent J 1976;
140: 131-140.
36. Pratten D, Johnson G. An evaluation <strong>of</strong> finishing instruments for an anterior
and a posterior composite resin. J Proslhet Dent 1988; 60: 154-158.
37. Strass1er H. Polishing composite resins to perfection depends on the filler.
Denl Ojf1990; 10; 9-10.
38. Christensen RP, Christensen GJ. Comparison <strong>of</strong> instruments and
commercial pastes used for finishing and <strong>polishing</strong> composite resin. Gen
Dent 1981 ;29:40-45.
39. Chung K..Effects <strong>of</strong> finishing and <strong>polishing</strong> procedures on the surface texture
<strong>of</strong> resin composites. Dent Maler 1994; 10: 325-330.
40. Kaplan BA, Goldstein GR, Kijayaragliavan TV, et al. <strong>The</strong> <strong>effect</strong> <strong>of</strong> three <strong>polishing</strong>
<strong>systems</strong> on the surface roughness <strong>of</strong> four hybrid composites: A pr<strong>of</strong>ilometric
and scanning electron microscope study. J Prosthet Dent 1996; 76: 34-38.
41. Boghosian AA, Randolph RG, Jekkals VJ. Rotatory instrument finishing
<strong>of</strong> micro-filled and small-particle hybrid composite resins. J Am Dent
Assoc 1987; 115: 299.
New Address:
Since June 1, 2002, the business oUice <strong>of</strong> the
American Journal <strong>of</strong> Dentistry is at:
American Journal <strong>of</strong> Dentistry
318 Indian Trace, Suite 500
Weston, FL 33326-2996
Please send all subscription orders to this address.
Tel.: (954) 888-9101
Fax: (954) 888-9137
E-mail: amjdent@sprintmail.com