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

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.