[Downloaded free from http://www.drjjournal.net on Wednesday, October 4, 2017, IP: 46.150.23.

15]

Dental Research Journal

Original Article
Effect of finishing/polishing techniques and time on surface roughness
of esthetic restorative materials
Prashanthi Sampath Madhyastha1, Shreya Hegde2, N. Srikant3, Ravindra Kotian1, Srividhya Sriraman Iyer4
Departments of 1Dental Materials, 2Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics and 3Oral Pathology, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Mangalore,
Manipal University and 4Dental Materials, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Mangalore, Manipal University, Mangalore, Karnataka, India

ABSTRACT
Background: Surface roughness associated with improper finishing/polishing of restorations can
result in plaque accumulation, gingival irritation, surface staining, and poor esthetic of restored teeth.
The study aimed to evaluate the efficiency of various finishing and polishing systems and time using
various procedures on surface roughness of some esthetic restorative materials.
Materials and Methods: In this in vitro study, samples of two composite materials, compomer
and glass ionomer cement (GIC) materials, were fabricated. Finishing and polishing were done
immediately (n = 40) and after 1 week (n = 40) using four systems (diamond bur + soflex discs;
diamond bur + Astropol polishing brush; tungsten carbide bur + soflex discs; tungsten carbide
bur + Astropol polishing brush). Surface roughness was measured using surface profilometer. Data
were statistically analyzed by t‑test (for each material and time period) and one‑way analysis of
variance followed by Tukey’s post hoc (for finishing and polishing systems) at a significant level of
P < 0.05.
Results: Analysis of time period, irrespective of finishing and polishing system showed that Ra values
were greater (P < 0.05) in delayed polishing in GIC > Z100 > Filtek P90 > Dyract AP, suggesting
Received: July 2016 immediate polishing is better. Among the materials, Filtek P90 had the least Ra values indicating
Accepted: July 2017 the smoothest surface among all materials, followed by Z100, Dyract AP, and GIC. Comparison of
polishing and finishing systems irrespective of materials showed that Ra values were lower (P > 0.05)
Address for correspondence:
Dr. Shreya Hegde,
in diamond + Astropol combination whereas diamond + soflex had the greatest Ra values.
Department of Conservative Conclusion: It might be concluded that:  (i) Filtek P90 showed least Ra values followed
Dentistry and Endodontics, by < Z100 < Dyract < GIC; (ii) immediate (24 h) finishing/polishing of materials is better than
Manipal College of Dental delayed; and (iii) among all these polishing systems, diamond bur–Astropol and Astrobrush showed
Sciences, Mangalore,
Manipal University,
good surface finish.
Mangalore, Karnataka, India. Key Words: Artglass dental composits, dental esthetic, material, dental finishing, dental
E‑mail: drshreyahegde16@
gmail.com polishing

INTRODUCTION important aspects of critical clinical restorative

procedures that enhance both esthetics and longevity
One of the desirable features for a satisfactory of restored teeth.[3‑5] Surface roughness due to improper
restoration is smooth surface finish.[1,2] High‑quality
finishing and polishing of dental restorations are This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution‑NonCommercial‑ShareAlike 3.0 License, which
Access this article online allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non‑commercially,
as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under
the identical terms.

Website: www.drj.ir For reprints contact: [email protected]

www.drjjournal.net
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/journals/1480 How to cite this article: Madhyastha PS, Hegde S, Srikant N, Kotian R,
Iyer SS. Effect of finishing/polishing techniques and time on surface
roughness of esthetic restorative materials. Dent Res J 2017;14:326-30.

326 © 2017 Dental Research Journal | Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow

[Downloaded free from http://www.drjjournal.net on Wednesday, October 4, 2017, IP: 46.150.23.15]

Madhyastha, et al.: Surface roughness of esthetic restorative materials

finishing/polishing of dental restorations can result in and glass ionomer cement were evaluated for surface
excessive plaque accumulation, gingival irritation, roughness [Table 1].
increased surface staining, and poor esthetics of restored
The samples were represented as follows:
teeth that could potentially lead to demineralization
• Silorane‑based composites (SBC)
of enamel, possible recurrent caries, and periodontal • Methacrylate‑based composites (MBC)
problems.[6‑9] Furthermore, patient consciousness of • Glass ionomer cement (GIC)
restorations with possible irritations to tongue, lips, and • Dyract AP Compomer (DAP)
cheeks is matter of concern. Therefore, smoothness of
restorations is of utmost importance for its success. Specimen preparation
All specimen preparation was done by a single operator,
Among the wide variety of finishing and polishing to reduce variability. Specimens were prepared using
devices that are available in the market to the clinician, Brass molds (10 mm diameter × 2 mm thickness).
silicon carbide‑coated or aluminum oxide‑coated The mold was sandwiched between transparent
abrasive discs, impregnated rubber or silicone discs and matrix strips. The uncured composites were inserted
wheels, mutifluted tungsten carbide finishing burs, and into the mold and intentionally overfilled. Light
hard bonded‑surface coated ceramic diamond rotary pressure was applied to expel excess material from
instruments are most commonly used to finish and polish the mold. Each specimen was light cured (CICADA
dental restoratives.[1,5,10,11] Each of these instruments or dental LED curing light radiometer, Foshan CICADA
devices leaves the surface of various restorative materials Dental Instruments Co, Ltd, China) through the top
with varying degrees of surface roughness. and bottom for the duration recommended by the
The effectiveness of finishing/polishing procedures manufacturers. The intensity (200–400 mW/cm2) of
on restorative surfaces is an important consideration the light‑curing unit was checked before each sample
in restorative processes. As finishing/polishing run using a radiometer. The set cylindrical specimens
procedures are usually conducted immediately were separated from the mold. The specimens were
postpolymerization, this prematurity can make the stored at 100% relative humidity at 37°C for 24 h.
restorative material more susceptible to effects of heat Experimental design
generation. Delayed finishing/polishing may make the Eighty specimens of each restorative material were
restorative material less susceptible to negative effects fabricated (n = 10). The matrix strip formed surface
of heat generation.[12‑14] Thus, it becomes important was used as a baseline for all tests. Twenty specimens
to determine which finishing/polishing system and were finished and polished immediately using four
finishing/polishing time offer best results for esthetic finishing and polishing procedures and the remaining
restorative materials in clinical practice. twenty specimens were finished and polished after
The study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of various a week [Figure 1]. Specimens were examined for
finishing and polishing systems using various obvious voids, labeled on the bottom and randomly
procedures on surface roughness of esthetic restorative separated into four treatment groups.
materials and also to evaluate the effect of immediate
Finishing and polishing procedures
or delayed finishing/polishing procedures on surface
• Method I: Extra‑fine finishing diamond bur
roughness of esthetic restorative materials.
followed by soflex discs  (Al2O2‑coated, abrasive
A well‑finished restoration with less adhesive disc system, fine grit, and extra‑fine grit)  (3M
properties contributes not only to better esthetics but ESPE, St Paul, USA) was employed with a
also reduces the development of secondary caries and
periodontal disease. Thus, we must remain cognizant Table 1: Materials used in the study
of the right polishing system and timing for each Product name Type of material Manufacturer
material to obtain optimum results. Filtek P90 Silorane‑based 3M/ESPE, St.
microhybrid composite Paul, MN, USA
MATERIALS AND METHODS Z100 Methacrylate‑based 3M/ESPE, St.
hybrid composite Paul, MN, USA
GC Gold Label Light Cured Resin‑modified GIC GC America
Materials used in the study Universal Restorative
In this experimental in vitro study, silorane‑based Dyract AP Compomer Dentsply India
composite, methacrylate‑based composite, compomer, GIC: Glass ionomer cement

Dental Research Journal / Volume 14 / Issue 5 / September-October 2017 327

[Downloaded free from http://www.drjjournal.net on Wednesday, October 4, 2017, IP: 46.150.23.15]

Madhyastha, et al.: Surface roughness of esthetic restorative materials

Preparation of samples (80 samples each of restorative materials studied)

Statistical analysis
The data were expressed as mean ± standard
deviation  (SD). The significance of
Immediate finishing /polishing Delayed finishing/polishing differences (P = 0.05) among the groups was assessed
(24 hours) (1 week)
using one‑way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test
followed by Tukey’s test.
Diamond bur+ Tungsten carbide Tungsten carbide
Diamond
Astropol bur + Soflex bur + Astropol RESULTS
Bur+Soflex discs
polishing brush discs polishing brush

Data were statistically analyzed by t‑test (for each

Surface roughness measurement material and time period) and one‑way ANOVA
Figure 1: Expermental design followed by Tukey’s post hoc  (for finishing and
polishing agents). The data were expressed as
high‑speed turbine with water‑spray‑coolant, and mean ± SD P < 0.05 was considered as significant.
an air‑dried slow hand‑piece, respectively
Analysis of time period irrespective of finishing
• Method II: Extra‑fine finishing diamond bur
and polishing system showed that Ra values
followed by the Astropol and Astrobrush polishing
were greater (P < 0.05) in delayed polishing in
system (silicon‑based abrasive polisher point and
GIC > MBC > SBC > DAP, suggesting immediate
polisher brush) (Ivoclar Vivadent, Liechtenstein)
polishing is better. Within the materials, when
was employed with a high‑speed turbine with
immediate and delayed polishing was compared
water‑spray coolant, and a low‑speed handpiece
to baseline readings, polishing was better (less Ra
with water spray, respectively
value) in DAP < SBC < MBC < GIC in immediate;
• Method III: Thirty‑fluted tungsten carbide bur whereas in delayed polishing, the order was
followed by the soflex discs  (Al2O2‑coated, SBC < MBC < DAP < GIC. Among the materials,
abrasive disc system, fine grit and extra‑fine SBC had the least Ra values indicating the smoothest
grit) was employed with a high‑speed turbine surface among all materials, followed by MBC, DAP,
with water‑spray coolant, and an air‑dried slow and GIC [Figures 2 and 3]. Comparison of polishing
handpiece, respectively and finishing systems irrespective of materials
• Method IV: Thirty‑fluted tungsten carbide bur showed that Ra values were lower (P > 0.05) in
followed by the Astropol and Astrobrush polishing diamond + Astropol combination followed by
system was employed with a high‑speed turbine tunsten  +  soflex, tungsten  +  Astropol whereas
with water‑spray coolant, and a low‑speed as diamond  +  soflex had the greatest Ra values
handpiece with water spray, respectively. indicating that diamond and soflex combinations
Each step of the finishing–polishing was applied should be least used during the finishing and polishing
for 30 s. Each bur was applied using light pressure of composites [Figures 2 and 4].
in multiple directions. The soflex discs were
changed after the polishing of each sample and each DISCUSSION
silicon‑based polisher point was discarded after use
while the diamond burs and carbide burs (Mani, Inc., The finishing and polishing techniques employed
Japan) were changed every three samples. for the tooth‑colored dental restorative materials
improves its longevity and aesthetic appearance
Measurement of surface roughness of the material.[15] Polishing is complicated by the
The surface was evaluated using Surtronic 3+ (Taylor heterogeneous nature of these dental materials,
Hobson Limited, England) coupled to a computer with i.e., hard filler particles embedded in a relatively soft
Talyprofile software surface analyzer with a cut off matrix. Some other factors affecting the polishability
length of 0.80 mm and a crosshead speed of 0.25 mm/s of resin restorations are filler content, particle size,
to obtain average surface roughness (represented polishing medium, and polishing technique.[16,17] In
by unit Ra, μm) and a surface profile tracing. Each this study, Surtronic 3 + was used to evaluate the
sample was rotated 120°C, relative to the center, surface roughness values (Ra) and the results were
for each of three readings and averaged to generate statistically analyzed using one‑way ANOVA with
average roughness value. Tukey’s post hoc.

328 Dental Research Journal / Volume 14 / Issue 5 / September-October 2017

[Downloaded free from http://www.drjjournal.net on Wednesday, October 4, 2017, IP: 46.150.23.15]

Madhyastha, et al.: Surface roughness of esthetic restorative materials

resin composite compared to delayed polishing. Cenci

et  al.[18] recommended immediate polishing since this
procedure reduces the number of clinical sessions.
Several other authors also have proposed a 24‑h delay
for finishing procedures,[19,20] which supports the result
obtained in this study, but most clinicians perform
finishing/polishing procedures immediately after
restoration placement.
Figure 2: Comparison of roughness with materials and
finishing/polishing systems (μm). However, the system used for finishing and polishing
also should be taken into consideration. The types of
finishing/polishing systems and abrasives might have
an influence on the surface roughness of the materials.
Despite carefully placing the matrixes during esthetic
restoration, removal of excess material or recontouring
of restorations is often clinically necessary. For proper
contouring anatomically structured teeth, diamond
and carbide burs are necessary.[1] Finishing diamonds
were best suited for gross removal and contouring
Figure 3: Comparison of roughness in all materials (μm). because of their high cutting efficiency oncomposite
surfaces while carbide finishing burs would be best
suited for smoothing and finishing as a result of their
low cutting efficiency.[21,22]
In this study, extra‑fine diamond burs and 30‑fluted
tungsten carbide burs were used to finish the surface
of the restorations and following these procedures
soflex discs  (in Groups  I and III) and Astropol and
Figure 4: Comparison of roughness in finishing and polishing Astrobrush (in Groups II and IV) were used to polish
systems (μm). the restorations. When different polishing systems
were used irrespective of materials, the surface
The time for finishing and polishing is an important roughness (Ra) values varied from high to least in
factor to be considered because it has an effect on the the order when diamond bur‑soflex disc, tungsten
surface roughness of esthetic restorative materials. In carbide bur‑Astropol and Astrobrush, tungsten carbide
this study, irrespective of polishing system used, both bur‑soflex disc, and diamond bur‑Astropol and
GIC and MBC showed increased roughness values Astrobrush.
at both the immediate (24 h) and delayed (1 week) According to the results obtained in this study, the
period as compared to the baseline value. Among the surface finish was good when diamond bur–Astropol
polishing materials, DAP and SBC demonstrated least and Astrobrush was used. Other investigator have
Ra values within 24 h (immediate) followed by MBC shown that Super‑snap abrasive discs produced
and GIC while the Ra values after a 1 week (delayed) a smoother surface than Astropol and Astrobrush
showed SBC and MBC created the least surface silicone polishers for all the materials,[19] the results
roughness followed by DAP and GIC. would be valid clinically for readily accessible and flat
Therefore, based on the results of this study, the surface surfaces, i. e., not for all areas in the mouth. Therefore,
roughness of the materials when finished/polished was silicone polishers are necessary for posterior areas and
measured immediate (24 h) showed the least Ra values for concave and convex surfaces.[19]
when compared to delayed (1 week). These results After finishing and polishing of esthetic materials with
were supported by Venturini et  al.[14] that immediate different techniques, the remaining roughness may be
polishing did not produce a negative impact on the attributed to distinct patterns of particle size and their
surface roughness, hardness and microleakage of a arrangement within the resin matrix. For a finishing
microfilled  (Filtek A110) and a hybrid  (Filtek Z250) system to be rendered effective, the cutting particles

Dental Research Journal / Volume 14 / Issue 5 / September-October 2017 329

[Downloaded free from http://www.drjjournal.net on Wednesday, October 4, 2017, IP: 46.150.23.15]

Madhyastha, et al.: Surface roughness of esthetic restorative materials

should be harder than the filler particles; otherwise, 7. Bollen CM, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M. Comparison of surface
the abrasive medium may abrade the softer matrix roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface
roughness for bacterial plaque retention: A review of the
only. This may result in higher surface roughness.
literature. Dent Mater 1997;13:258‑69.
Therefore, the effectiveness of finishing and polishing 8. Reis AF, Giannini M, Lovadino JR, Ambrosano GM. Effects
procedures on restorative material surface may of various finishing systems on the surface roughness and
be more critical.[23,24] Further research is required staining susceptibility of packable composite resins. Dent Mater
to assess the other mechanical properties of these 2003;19:12‑8.
esthetic restorative materials. Additional in vivo and 9. Morgan M Finishing and polishing of direct posterior resin
in vitro studies are desirable to further substantiate the restorations. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent 2004;16:211‑7.
findings of this study. 10. Maalhagh‑Fard A, Wagner WC, Pink FE, Neme AM. Evaluation
of surface finish and polish of eight provisional restorative
materials using acrylic bur and abrasive disk with and without
CONCLUSION pumice. Oper Dent 2003;28:734‑9.
11. Koh R, Neiva G, Dennison J, Yaman P. Finishing systems on
Under the limitations of this in vitro study, it the final surface roughness of composites. J Contemp Dent Pract
might be concluded that: (i) SBC showed least 2008;9:138‑45.
Ra values followed by < MBC < DAP < GIC, 12. Yap AU, Sau CW, Lye KW. Effects of finishing/polishing time
(ii) immediate  (24  h) finishing/polishing of materials on surface characteristics of tooth‑coloured restoratives. J Oral
is better than delayed, and (iii) among all the polishing Rehabil 1998;25:456‑61.
13. da Silva JM, da Rocha DM, Travassos AC, Fernandes VV Jr.,
system used diamond bur–Astropol and Astrobrush
Rodrigues  JR. Effect of different finishing times on surface
showed good surface finish. roughness and maintenance of polish in nanoparticle and
Acknowledgment microhybrid composite resins. Eur J Esthet Dent 2010;5:288‑98.
This study was supported by Indian Council of 14. Venturini D, Cenci MS, Demarco FF, Camacho GB, Powers JM.
Effect of polishing techniques and time on surface roughness,
Medical Research under the Short Term Research
hardness and microleakage of resin composite restorations. Oper
Scholarships (STS 2014), research proposal no: Dent 2006;31:11‑7.
2014‑05757. 15. Marigo L, Rizzi M, La Torre G, Rumi G. 3‑D surface profile
Financial support and sponsorship analysis: Different finishing methods for resin composites. Oper
Dent 2001;26:562‑8.
Nil.
16. Wilder AD Jr., Swift EJ Jr., May KN Jr., Thompson  JY,
Conflicts of interest McDougal RA. Effect of finishing technique on the microleakage
The authors of this manuscript declare that they have and surface texture of resin‑modified glass ionomer restorative
materials. J Dent 2000;28:367‑73.
no conflicts of interest, real or perceived, financial or
17. Barghi N, Lind SD. A guide to polishing direct composite resin
nonfinancial in this article. restorations. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2000;21:138‑42, 144.
18. Cenci MS, Venturini D, Pereira‑Cenci T, Piva E, Demarco FF.
REFERENCES The effect of polishing techniques and time on the surface
characteristics and sealing ability of resin composite restorations
1. Baseren M. Surface roughness of nanofill and nanohybrid after one‑year storage. Oper Dent 2008;33:169‑76.
composite resin and ormocer‑based tooth‑colored restorative 19. Irie M, Suzuki K. Effects of delayed polishing on gap formation
materials after several finishing and polishing procedures. of cervical restorations. Oper Dent 2002;27:59‑65.
J Biomater Appl 2004;19:121‑34. 20. Lopes  GC, Franke  M, Maia  HP. Effect of finishing time and
2. Jefferies SR, Barkmeier WW, Gwinnett AJ. Three composite techniques on marginal sealing ability of two composite
finishing systems: A multisite in vitro evaluation. J Esthet Dent restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent 2002;88:32‑6.
1992;4:181‑5. 21. Jung M. Surface roughness and cutting efficiency of composite
3. Berastegui E, Canalda C, Brau E, Miquel C. Surface roughness finishing instruments. Oper Dent 1997;22:98‑104.
of finished composite resins. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68:742‑9. 22. Ferracane JL, Condon JR, Mitchem JC. Evaluation of subsurface
4. Tate WH, DeSchepper EJ, Cody T. Quantitative analysis of six defects created during the finishing of composites. J Dent Res
composite polishing techniques on a hybrid composite material. 1992;71:1628‑32.
J Esthet Dent 1992;Suppl 4:30‑2. 23. Pallav P, De Gee AJ, Davidson CL, Erickson RL, Glasspoole EA.
5. Jefferies  SR. The art and science of abrasive finishing and The influence of admixing microfiller to small‑particle composite
polishing in restorative dentistry. Dent Clin North Am resin on wear, tensile strength, hardness, and surface roughness.
1998;42:613‑27. J Dent Res 1989;68:489‑90.
6. Nagem Filho H, D’Azevedo MT, Nagem HD, Marsola FP. 24. Rai R, Gupta R. In vitro evaluation of the effect of two finishing
Surface roughness of composite resins after finishing and and polishing systems on four esthetic restorative materials.
polishing. Braz Dent J 2003;14:37‑41. J Conserv Dent 2013;16:564‑7.

330 Dental Research Journal / Volume 14 / Issue 5 / September-October 2017