Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
AIM: To evaluate the effect of three polishing protocols that could be implemented at recall on the surface roughness of two direct esthetic restorative materials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Specimens (n = 40) measuring 8 mm (length) × 5 mm (width) × 4 mm (height) were fabricated in an acrylic mold using two light-cured resin-based materials (microfilled composite and microhybrid composite). After photopolymerization, all specimens were finished and polished with one of three polishing protocols (Enhance, One Gloss, and Sof-Lex polishing systems). The average surface roughness of each treated specimen was determined using 3D optical profilometer. Next all specimens were brushed 60,000 times with nylon bristles at 7200 rpm using crosshead brushing device with equal parts of toothpaste and water used as abrasive medium. The surface roughness of each specimen was measured after brushing followed by repolishing with one of three polishing protocols, and then, the final surface roughness values were determined. RESULTS: The data were analyzed using one-way and two-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's honestly significant difference (HSD). Significant difference (P < 0.05) in surface roughness was observed. Simulated brushing following initial polishing procedure significantly roughened the surface of restorative material (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Polishing protocols can be used to restore a smooth surface on esthetic restorative materials following simulated tooth brushing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Uppal et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: