Next Article in Journal
Biomedical Courses Should Also Be Designed for Dental Students: The Perceptions of Dental Students
Next Article in Special Issue
Novel Histomorphometrical Approach to Evaluate the Integration Pattern and Functionality of Barrier Membranes
Previous Article in Journal
Evaluating Classification Consistency of Oral Lesion Images for Use in an Image Classification Teaching Tool
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Effect of Polishing Systems on the Surface Roughness of Nano-Hybrid and Nano-Filling Composite Resins: A Systematic Review

Faculty of Dentistry, University of Antioquia, Medellín 050010, Colombia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Submission received: 3 June 2021 / Revised: 10 August 2021 / Accepted: 10 August 2021 / Published: 12 August 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Dental Materials and Their Clinical Applications)

Abstract

:
Background: The polishing of surface roughness is an important characteristic of composite resins and is directly related to the longevity of the restoration and patient comfort. Different polishing systems utilize different protocols, as reported in the literature. This systematic review (SR) aimed to synthesize and analyze the available scientific evidence about the effect of polishing systems on the surface roughness of nano-hybrid and nano-filling composite resins. Methods: The study protocol of this SR was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews -PROSPERO- (CRD4201705653). A search was conducted in PubMed-Medline, Scopus, LILACS, EMBASE, for the period 2007–2020. Quality appraisal and a descriptive analysis of the papers that met the inclusion criteria were conducted. Results: 18 records were included. Seven polishing systems (PS) of one step were found, seven PS of two steps, eight PS of three steps, three PS of four steps, and four PS of five steps. Polishing protocols (PP) varied, with application times ranging from 10 s to 60 s with speeds between 10,000 and 30,000 RPM. Regarding composition, the aluminum oxide was one of the most important components used to achieve a smooth surface. Conclusions: Multistep polishing systems were the most effective (i.e., Astropol and Sof-Lex Discs).

1. Introduction

Composite resins were introduced to dentistry more than 50 years ago [1]. This kind of dental material has presented disadvantages, such as high pigmentation and accelerated wear [2]. However, these materials are universally accepted for direct restorations due to their aesthetics, adhesion capacity (including an adhesive system), longevity, and thermal insulation (especially when light cured composite resins are considered) [2,3,4]. The mechanical properties of composite resins are related to their long term success [2], and this depends on their microstructure [5]. Therefore, the amount of load, size, morphology, and distribution of the filler particles are essential for material selection [1,2]. The most important current changes consist in reducing the size of the filler particles, thus obtaining materials that are easier to use and more effective [1,6]. Surface hardness is influenced by the degree of surface roughness and predicts wear resistance and ability to grind the opposing tooth [7,8].
Polishability is an important characteristic of composite resins: a smooth surface gives the restoration better aesthetics and comfort to the patient, reduces discoloration, facilitates hygiene [9,10,11,12], decreases bacterial adhesion [10], and reduces tissue inflammation, secondary caries, biofilm retention [9,10,13,14] and the risk of fracture [11]. Similarly, the use of composites is relevant in other clinical fields, such as orthodontics, where polishing systems play an important role after the treatment to ensure aesthetics and to reduce associated dental or periodontal complications [15,16,17,18]. A polished surface reduces initial bacterial adhesion and the development of biofilm in the restoration and the adjacent dental surfaces [19]. The surface roughness threshold for bacterial retention is 0.2 μm; below this, a reduction in plaque accumulation could be expected [20]. Changes of even 0.3 μm in the surface finish can be easily detected by the tongue [8,12]. Finishing procedures remove excess material with particles larger than 25 μm, while polishing procedures remove particles smaller than 25 μm [12]. At present, it is believed that composite resins with nano-filled particles obtain a better polish and shine after being subjected to different polishing processes. However, in a systematic review carried out by Kaizera et al. [21], it was concluded that there are no statistically significant differences in the polishing and brightness of composite resins with nano-filled particles vs composite resins with hybrid or nano-hybrid particles.
The classification of composite resins has mostly focused on filler-size distribution, filler content or composition [1,22]. For instance, conventional materials (or macro-filled, containing particles larger than 1 μ). However, rather than “microfills” or “nanofills”, containing only micro or nanoparticles, modern resin composites are considered a “hydrid” category, commonly named “nanohybrids” to refer to materials containing a fraction of nanoparticles (<100 nm) and of sub-micron particles (≤1 μm, typically averaging 0.5–1.0 μm) [1,6,22]. Nanofill composite resins contain only nanoscale particles, which provide a more polished surface, less shrinkage, color stability, and superior aesthetics [20,23].
To obtain an optimum polishing and shine of the composite resins, whose particles vary in hardness, shape and size, it is necessary to subject the material to abrasion processes [9,11]. Currently, an attempt has been made to determine which abrasion system provides the most polished surface for the composite resins, and several methods have been introduced without reaching a consensus that demonstrates which is the best. Some polishing methods or systems are: silicone discs, tungsten carbide burs, rubber cups, abrasive belts, and polishing pastes. These are available in one step polishing systems and multistep polishing systems [8,13,19,24,25].
Research in the field of the polishing and shine of composite resins is justified by the need to create a restored dental surface with optimal aesthetics and biological and functional properties in the patient. The amount of in vitro research that currently exists suggests the need to work on the comparison of the results obtained which will guide the improvement in behaviors and parameters to obtain better polished restorations [21].
Accordingly, this study aimed to conduct a systematic review that seeks to analyze and synthesize the available scientific evidence on the polishing systems of nano-hybrid and nano-filling composite resins to guide the clinician in obtaining an optimal polish that favors the aesthetic expectations of the patient and improves dental and periodontal health.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Protocol and Registration

The study was approved by the Ethical Committee of the Faculty of Dentistry at the University of Antioquia (Act 2/2017). In addition, the protocol of the systematic review was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews -PROSPERO- (CRD42017056536). This paper was written according to the PRISMA statement for systematic reviews and meta-analysis [26].

2.2. PICOs Question and Eligibility Criteria

The PICOs (population/participants, intervention, control, outcome and study design) strategy to formulate a focused question was used as follows: What is the scientific evidence related to in vitro studies (s) about the effect of different polishing systems (I-C) on the surface roughness (O) in nano-hybrid and nano-filling composite resins (P)? According to this question, we considered papers that accomplished these criteria:
  • Study design/eligibility criteria: in vitro studies published in Spanish, English, and Portuguese between January 2007 and December 2020 (At beginning of this study and according to the dates of approval of this protocol in PROSPERO, the research team decided to include the searches period 2007–2017. Later, to update the information, we applied the search period by including 2018–2020. We excluded other formats, such as theoretical reviews, interventions, observational or analytic studies, critical and theoretical essays and clinical guides.
  • Population/participants: polishing systems for composite resins (nano-filling/nano-hybrid composite resins).
  • Intervention/Control: different types of nano-filling/nano-hybrid composite resins.
  • Outcome: the degree of surface roughness of nano-filling/nano-hybrid composite resins subjected to different polishing system.

2.3. Search Strategy and Data Extraction

Four electronic databases in health sciences were searched: PubMed-Medline, Scopus, LILACS (Latin American scientific literature in health sciences), EMBASE (The Excerpta Medica Database). In addition, grey literature (Google Scholar) searches through the reference lists of articles included, and manual consultations in specialized journals were conducted. This process was led by two reviewers (R.J.C and E.J.L.G). In the first round, the title and abstract were evaluated to define potential articles. After this, duplicate references were excluded; the full texts of remaining articles were reviewed. This process was conducted manually by R.J.C and E.J.L.G. Any discrepancies were resolved by the consensus of all four reviewers. We conducted a pilot test for one database to ensure concordance in the data extraction process, with a simple concordance index of 85% (by using ten abstracts).
Different combinations of text words and thesaurus terms were used. For example, the search query for PubMed was the following: (((((“Composite Resins”[Mesh]) OR (resin* OR composite* OR restorative*))) AND ((((nanofill* OR nanostructure* OR nanocomposite* OR nanoparticle* OR nanoscale* OR submicron*))) OR (((“Nanoparticles”[Mesh]) OR “Nanocomposites”[Mesh]) OR “Nanostructures”[Mesh]))))) AND ((surface roughness) OR (rough* OR smooth* OR luster* OR gloss* OR polish* OR finish*)). For EMBASE, the search query was: ‘resin’/exp or ‘resin’ or ‘composite dental resin’/exp or ‘composite dental resin’ or (‘composite’/exp or composite and (‘resins’/exp or resins)) and (nanofill* or ‘nanostructure’/exp or nanostructure or ‘nanomaterial’/exp or ‘nanomaterial’ or ‘nanoparticle’/exp or ‘nanoparticle’ or nanoscale or ‘submicron particle’/exp or ‘submicron particle’ or submicron*) and (‘submicron particle’/exp or ‘submicron particle’ or ‘surface roughness’/exp or ‘surface roughness’ or rough* or smooth* or luster* or gloss* or polish* or finish*). For other databases, we adapted these key words.

2.4. Critical Appraisal and Studies’ Analysis

Two of the authors (R.J.C and E.J.L.G) reviewed the quality for reporting in vitro studies. This process was checked by a third reviewer (A.A.A.S) who has expertise in epidemiology and systematic reviews. For this purpose, we applied a modified CONSORT checklist of 14 items for reporting in vitro studies of dental materials [27,28]. After a careful evaluation of papers, we selected those accomplishing at least 70% of all items for subsequent descriptive analysis. To guarantee the quality process, we conducted a pilot test with 5 articles, and we calculated a simple concordance index, with a score of 90%.

2.5. Data Analysis

We carried out a descriptive analysis of the main characteristics of the included reviews: the first author and year of publication, country, journal, study objective(s), composite resin name®, type of composite resin, manufacturer®.
To group the results obtained in Ra from the different studies, it was decided to average the different samples using the formula “Mean of Mean” ( X ¯ of X ¯ ):
X ¯   of   X ¯ = C 1 P 1 + C 2 P 2 + C 3 P 3 C 1 + C 2 + C 3
In this formula, CxPx is mean in Ra, P is the mean value, and Cx is the quantity (samples). All values are represented with means and their standard deviation (±SD).

3. Results

The search in the different databases yielded a result of 1608 records (after eliminating duplicates). After the complete reading of abstracts, and application of the exclusion criteria, 51 relevant articles were found. Finally, when applying the quality criteria, 17 articles were chosen for the systematic review (Figure 1Table 1) [3,20,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43]. Following the application of the quality criteria, a minimum of 10 items from a total of 14 were defined, which represents a threshold of 71.4% [27,28].
Table 2 summarizes the information from the 17 articles selected for this review. It was found that the countries with the highest number of publications were Turkey [3,30,31,33,40,41] and Brazil [32,34,37,39,42], with six (35.3%) and five (29.4%) publications, respectively. The most commonly used composite resins were: Filtek supreme in ten studies (58.8%) [3,29,30,31,35,36,37,38,39,40], Ceram X in seven studies (41.2%) [3,20,29,30,31,33,43], and Grandio in five studies (29.4%) [3,30,31,35,40]. The most commonly used polishing systems were: Sof-Lex Discs in 14 studies (82.4%) [3,20,29,31,32,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43], Enhance in combination with PoGo in 5 studies (29.4%) [32,33,34,36,37], and the PoGo system, also in 5 studies (29.4%) [3,30,31,38,43].
Regarding polishing protocols (PP) and the number of steps per system, the following results were found, according to the studies included in the systematic review: seven one step polishing systems (PS) [3,30,31,32,33,35,37,38,39,40,41,43], six two step PS [32,33,34,36,37,41], eight three step PS [3,20,29,31,32,33,35,36,39,40,41,43], three four step PS [29,35,37,38,39,42], and four five step PS [42]. PP varied, with application times ranging from 10 s to 60 s with speeds between 10,000 and 30,000 rpm. This information is detailed in Table 3. When comparing the number of steps of the polishing systems with the average of the Ra of the different samples, it was found that as the number of steps increased, the Ra decreased (Figure 2).
According to the PS used versus the Ra obtained on the mean for various samples (Figure 3), it was found that the polishing systems with lower Ra were, Astropol, Super-snap Rainbow Technique Kit and Sof-Lex Discs (4 SPS), with an Ra of 0.0549, 0.0799, 0.0961, respectively [20,29,35,36,37,38,39,42], and the systems with the highest Ra were Enhance + PoGo + Nanotechnology Liquid Polish (lasting touch), Lasting Touch and Fine then extra-fine diamond finishing bur, with an Ra of 0.6750, 0.9850, and 1.0350, respectively [33,40].
The comparison between the composite resin type and the surface roughness (Figure 4), showed a lower Ra for Filtek Supreme XT (transparent shade), Filtek Supreme XT (dentin shade) and Tetric EvoCeram systems, with a Ra in microns of 0.0290, 0.0307, 0.0550 respectively [29], and the composite resins that showed greater surface roughness were Fill Magic®, Smile, TPH Spectrum® with a Ra in microns of 0.5992, 0.6340, 0.7618, respectively [32,40].

4. Discussion

The main findings of this systematic review showed the available scientific evidence about the effect of polishing systems on the surface roughness of nano-hybrid and nano-filling composite resins through the analysis of in vitro studies. The decision to include studies expressing surface roughness results in Ra units was mainly because it was the most widely used unit of measure in most of the studies that evaluated the surface roughness of the composite resins. Other units of measure for surface roughness, such as Rz, Ry and Sa, were absent in the vast majority of studies, which was why it was decided not to use these units.
The vast majority of studies reported a control group, with the application of a pressure Mylar band on the composite resin being the most popular, with a total of 328 samples and an average of Ra 0.1281. However, Alawjali and Lui in 2013 published an in vitro study in which they demonstrate that Mylar groups generate greater color change after being subjected to different substances with pigments, and mention that the increase in discoloration can be explained by the presence of a layer rich in the composite resin matrix that is formed on the surface of the restoration [44]. It has also been shown that the polishing achieved with the Mylar strip results in surfaces with less hardness (versus abrasive polishing systems) and, consequently, greater discoloration [44]. Therefore, the removal of the composite resin matrix by finishing and polishing will allow the harder filler particles to remain in contact with the surface during polishing, producing a harder and pigment resistant surface [20].
Concerning the PP, the great heterogeneity in this regard is evidenced from the total of 11 different protocols. Besides, once the results of the studies selected were averaged, only 11 polishing systems exceeded the 0.2 µm threshold, which is considered important to reduce plaque accumulation, the possibility of secondary caries and periodontal problems [29,35,36,38,41]. The best result was obtained by the Astropol system, with an average Ra of 0.0549µm after being applied in 85 samples in the studies of Antonson et al. in 2011 and Senawongse et al. in 2007 [29,36]. Two protocols were reported, one of 20 s and another of 60 s of application, and it was appreciated that with both protocols Astropol could be below the threshold of Ra 0.2 µm [29,36]. The Super-Snap Rainbow Technique Kit system obtained the second best performance with an Ra mean of 0.0799. However, it is important to be clear that this system was only reported by Yadav et al. in 2016 [20], and this system was applied in 10 samples. The Sof-Lex Discs four step system obtained an average Ra of 0.0961 µm after being applied in 154 samples in five of the selected articles, with the use of this system six different protocols were found, all managing to exceed the limit of 0.2 µm [29,35,37,38,42].
On the other hand, the three step Sof-Lex Discs system was applied, obtaining an average of 0.3577 µm in a total of 221 samples in eight studies [3,20,31,32,36,40,41,43], of the five protocols reported with this system, it is well known that to gain optimal results, each disc must be applied for a time longer than 45 s, since whenever the application time is shorter, the result will be greater than 0.2 µm. This information is important, since according to Yadav et al. [20], the prolonged application of the Sof-Lex Discs system may have a disadvantage, that the friction heat generated by the discs causes microcracks in the polymer matrix that creates a rougher surface for hybrid composites.
It should be clarified that in this systematic review, some studies used the Sof-Lex Discs as a finishing and polishing system, fully (four steps) or partially (three steps, which means, ignoring the first disk in the system stream). Accordingly, the results were grouped separately according to whether four or three steps were used in the Sof-Lex Discs PS.
According to the results, in most systems that exceeded the 0.2 µm Ra threshold, aluminum oxide was found to be a common denominator within components which produce much smoother surfaces and this is explained by the fact that aluminum oxide has a higher hardness than most filler particles in composite resins. Otherwise, the polishing agent would only remove the soft composite resin matrix leaving filler particles protruding from the surface [29,36,40]. According to Weinstein [45], when systematically decreasing the particle size of the abrasive, a smoother surface can be achieved. Likewise, the polishing material must be smaller than the particle size of the restorative material being polished to produce better results [45]. This reveals the success of the Astropol system in most of the studies, since in its last step only abrasive particles of 0.3 µm were observed.
The number of steps of the systems that exceeded the 0.2 µm Ra threshold was between two and five. It was observed that the EXL-695 experimental disc system, with an Ra of 0.12 µm [36], and Clearfil Twist Dia, with an Ra of 0.2 µm [41], were two step systems. In the study by Antonson et al. [36], the EXL-695 system was applied only to five composite resin types with a small sample being meaningful, and in the study by Aytac et al. [41], the Clearfil Twist Dia system was applied to 40 samples with a protocol of 45 s per step. However, unlike most PS, this is not composed of aluminum oxide, but rather rubber with diamond grains, and in this case, it was shown that they exceeded the control group of the Mylar band and the three step Sof-Lex Discs, Occlubrush, Sof-Lex Spiral Finishing and Polishing Wheels systems, and obtained an Ra higher than 0.2 µm. This suggests that smooth surfaces can also be achieved with diamond abrasive particles or diamond polishing pastes using finishing and polishing systems containing these particles [41].
Considering the reduced steps, application time and elimination of the risks of cross infection, single step polishing systems have become an interesting option [36]. In this systematic review, no single step polishing system managed below the 0.2 µm Ra threshold. However, the Enhance systems with a mean Ra of 0.2167 µm after being applied in 30 samples with a 20 s PP, as is shown in the study of Nunes et al. [39], and PoGo with an Ra of 0.2218 µm after being applied in 121 samples with a PP of 10 to 30 s [3,30,31,38,43], achieved results that were close to the threshold, which means greater simplicity in the clinical protocol. When the PP was reduced to 10 s with the PoGo system, as is shown in the study by Buchgraber et al. [38], a result of an Ra of 0.560 µm was obtained. Although the one step PS mostly offer results somewhat distant from the 0.2 µm threshold, the Enhance and PoGo systems can become a moderately acceptable option.
It should be noted that some studies have reported that the PoGo one step polishing system exhibited a similar or even better Ra when compared to the three step Sof-Lex Discs system [3,31,43]. According to the authors of these studies, the superior performance of PoGo could be attributed to the fine diamond powders used instead of aluminum oxide [3]. However, whenever the PoGo system was compared to the complete Sof-Lex Discs or four step systems, it was generally surpassed [38].
The manufacturer recommends the use of the Enhance system followed by the PoGo system for more favorable results [3]. However, this combination did not achieve good results, since they obtained an average Ra of 0.4631µm after being applied in 74 samples in five studies, with protocols between 20 and 30 s [32,33,34,36,37]. This situation does not necessarily mean a bad combination, since this result was obtained after calculating a general mean of all the results found and, in some of these investigations, the Ra was significantly higher for all participants [32,33,34]. In addition, in some Enhance PoGo studies, they obtained results below the Ra threshold of 0.2 µm and reached the heights of the Astropol and Sof-Lex Discs of three steps [36], and even managed to overcome the complete Sof-Lex Discs or four step systems, as happened in the study of Berger et al. [37]. Therefore, the manufacturer’s instructions must be followed and the Enhance/PoGo system should be used as one. Combining systems, as observed in this systematic review in most cases, did not seem to be very practical since it resulted in greater clinical complexity, requiring up to five steps per protocol [42], and did not always represent an improvement in the Ra, as can be seen in the study by Baseren et al. [46], where they combined the Astropol system, of proven efficiency, with Astrobrush and obtained an average Ra of 0.3450 µm, a value surpassed by the other systems evaluated in that research.
Regarding the composite resins reported in the different studies, it should be noted that although Filtek Supreme XT (transparent shade and dentin shade) and Tetric EvoCeram resin obtained the best results, the results obtained were averaged considering only 30 samples for each composite resin and these were obtained only from the study of Senawongse et al. [29], the results obtained after the composite resins with nanoparticles were subjected to the different polishing systems are highlighted in this study, with average values of Ra (µm) from 0.016 to 0.088 obtained. Therefore, it is evident that this study is one of the lowest reported surface roughness values, which suggests that Filtek Supreme XT and Tetric EvoCeram resins are not necessarily the best polished composite resins.
Within the limitations of this systematic review, there is great heterogeneity in the methodology of the selected studies, which makes it difficult to conduct a meta-analysis. However, it is considered a strength that all the included studies reported surface roughness in Ra units, which made it possible to average samples from different studies. For future systematic reviews related to the topic, it is recommended to evaluate the surface roughness of other materials, such as ceramics or metals, among others. Finally, it should be noted that the lacking of instruments for assessing the risk of bias or methodological quality specifically for in vitro studies is evident. For that, the research team decided to use standardized guidelines for improving quality and transparency in reporting in vitro studies in experimental dental research or dental materials [27,28]. New studies are needed, including variables such as the type and size of filling, degree of conversion, and the mechanical strength of several composite resins, to enable a complete discussion about the effectiveness of the polishing systems. Further systematic reviews in other fields, such as orthodontics, could elucidate the importance of polishing systems to ensure dental and periodontal health during and after the orthodontic treatment [15,16,17,18].

5. Conclusions

This systematic review reveals that the most effective polishing systems are those in which the size of the abrasive particle is systematically decreased, as is the case with the Astropol and Sof-Lex Discs system. Aluminum oxide is one of the most important components used to achieve a smooth surface. Likewise, diamond particles seem to be equally effective. Although the single step systems have evolved, they are still surpassed by multistep systems if simplicity and effectiveness are sought in the clinic. Similarly, according to the findings, it is advisable to opt for systems that have been demonstrated to be effective even with application times of a few seconds.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.J.-C., E.J.L.-G. and F.L.-C.; methodology, R.J.-C., E.J.L.-G., F.L.-C. and A.A.A.-S.; validation, R.J.-C., E.J.L.-G., F.L.-C. and A.A.A.-S.; formal analysis, R.J.-C. and E.J.L.-G.; investigation, R.J.-C., E.J.L.-G. and F.L.-C.; data curation, R.J.-C. and E.J.L.-G.; writing—original draft preparation, R.J.-C. and E.J.L.-G.; writing—review and editing, F.L.-C. and A.A.A.-S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study is a systematic review. However, the protocol for this review was approved by the Ethical Committee of the Faculty of Dentistry of the University of Antioquia (Act 2/2017).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

Final report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the title of Prosthodontist for Robinson Jaramillo-Cartagena and Eider J. López-Galeano.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ferracane, J.L. Resin composite—State of the art. Dent. Mater. 2011, 27, 29–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Ramirez-Molina, R.; Kaplan, A.E. Influence of polishing protocol on flexural properties of several dental composite resins. Acta Odontol. Latinoam. 2015, 28, 64–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Erdemir, U.; Sancakli, H.S.; 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Gonulol, N.; Yilmaz, F. The effects of finishing and polishing techniques on surface roughness and color stability of nanocomposites. J. Dent. 2012, 40 (Suppl. 2), e64–e70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Tsujimoto, A.; Barkmeier, W.W.; Takamizawa, T.; Latta, M.A.; Miyazaki, M. Influence of Thermal Stress on Simulated Localized and Generalized Wear of Nanofilled Resin Composites. Oper. Dent. 2018, 43, 380–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Da Costa, J.; Ferracane, J.; Paravina, R.D.; Mazur, R.F.; Roeder, L. The effect of different polishing systems on surface roughness and gloss of various resin composites. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 2007, 19, 214–224, discussion 225–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Suarez, R.; Lozano, F. Comparación de la dureza superficial de resinas de nanotecnología, según el momento del pulido: In vitro [Comparison of surface hardness of nanotechnology composites according to polishing time: In vitro]. Rev. Estomatol. Herediana 2014, 24, 11–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Madhyastha, P.S.; Nayak, D.; Srikant, N.; Kotian, R.; Bhat, K.M. Effect of Finishing/Polishing Techniques and Time on Surface Roughness of Silorane and Methacrylate Based Restorative Materials. Oral Health Dent. Manag. 2015, 14, 212–218. [Google Scholar]
  9. Ereifej, N.S.; Oweis, Y.G.; Eliades, G. The effect of polishing technique on 3-D surface roughness and gloss of dental restorative resin composites. Oper. Dent. 2013, 38, E9–E20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  10. Chiang, Y.C.; Lai, E.H.; Kunzelmann, K.H. Polishing mechanism of light-initiated dental composite: Geometric optics approach. J. Formos. Med. Assoc. 2016, 115, 1053–1060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  11. Jefferies, S.R. Abrasive finishing and polishing in restorative dentistry: A state-of-the-art review. Dent. Clin. N. Am. 2007, 51, 379–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Chour, R.G.; Moda, A.; Arora, A.; Arafath, M.Y.; Shetty, V.K.; Rishal, Y. Comparative evaluation of effect of different polishing systems on surface roughness of composite resin: An in vitro study. J. Int. Soc. Prev. Community Dent. 2016, 6, S166–S170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Goncalves, M.A.; Teixeira, V.C.; Rodrigues, S.S.; de Oliveira, R.S.; Salvio, L.A. Evaluation of the roughness of composite resins submitted to different surface treatments. Acta Odontol. Latinoam. 2012, 25, 89–95. [Google Scholar]
  14. Pettini, F.; Corsalini, M.; Savino, M.G.; Stefanachi, G.; Di Venere, D.; Pappalettere, C.; Monno, G.; Boccaccio, A. Roughness Analysis on Composite Materials (Microfilled, Nanofilled and Silorane) After Different Finishing and Polishing Procedures. Open Dent. J. 2015, 9, 357–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. D’Amario, M.; Bernardi, S.; Di Lauro, D.; Marzo, G.; Macchiarelli, G.; Capogreco, M. Debonding and Clean-Up in Orthodontics: Evaluation of Different Techniques and Micro-Morphological Aspects of the Enamel Surface. Dent. J. 2020, 8, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Schuler, F.S.; van Waes, H. SEM-evaluation of enamel surfaces after removal of fixed orthodontic appliances. Am. J. Dent. 2003, 16, 390–394. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  17. Gracco, A.; Lattuca, M.; Marchionni, S.; Siciliani, G.; Alessandri Bonetti, G. SEM-Evaluation of enamel surfaces after orthodontic debonding: A 6 and 12-month follow-up in vivo study. Scanning 2015, 37, 322–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Webb, B.J.; Koch, J.; Hagan, J.L.; Ballard, R.W.; Armbruster, P.C. Enamel surface roughness of preferred debonding and polishing protocols. J. Orthod. 2016, 43, 39–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Vyavahare, N.; Gaikwad, S.; Raghavendra, S.S.; Kazi, M.M. Effect of finishing and polishing procedures on biofilm adhesion to composite surfaces: An ex vivo study. J. Dent. Allied. Sci. 2014, 3, 70–73. [Google Scholar]
  20. Yadav, R.D.; Raisingani, D.; Jindal, D.; Mathur, R. A Comparative Analysis of Different Finishing and Polishing Devices on Nanofilled, Microfilled, and Hybrid Composite: A Scanning Electron Microscopy and Profilometric Study. Int. J. Clin. Pediatr. Dent. 2016, 9, 201–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kaizer, M.R.; de Oliveira-Ogliari, A.; Cenci, M.S.; Opdam, N.J.; Moraes, R.R. Do nanofill or submicron composites show improved smoothness and gloss? A systematic review of in vitro studies. Dent. Mater. 2014, 30, e41–e78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Randolph, L.D.; Palin, W.M.; Leloup, G.; Leprince, J.G. Filler characteristics of modern dental resin composites and their influence on physico-mechanical properties. Dent. Mater. 2016, 32, 1586–1599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Schmitt, V.L.; Puppin-Rontani, R.M.; Naufel, F.S.; Nahsan, F.P.; Alexandre Coelho Sinhoreti, M.; Baseggio, W. Effect of the polishing procedures on color stability and surface roughness of composite resins. ISRN Dent. 2011, 2011, 617672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Kemaloglu, H.; Karacolak, G.; Turkun, L.S. Can Reduced-Step Polishers Be as Effective as Multiple-Step Polishers in Enhancing Surface Smoothness? J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 2017, 29, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. de Oliveira Lima, M.; Catelan, A.; Hernandes, N.M.; Giorgi, M.C.; Ambrosano, G.M.; Lima, D.A. In vitro evaluation of the effect of different polishing techniques on the surface roughness of composite resins submitted to at-home and in-office bleaching procedures. J. Conserv. Dent. 2015, 18, 483–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2021, 134, 178–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Faggion, C.M., Jr. Guidelines for reporting pre-clinical in vitro studies on dental materials. J. Evid. Based Dent. Pract. 2012, 12, 182–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Krithikadatta, J.; Gopikrishna, V.; Datta, M. CRIS Guidelines (Checklist for Reporting In-vitro Studies): A concept note on the need for standardized guidelines for improving quality and transparency in reporting in-vitro studies in experimental dental research. J. Conserv. Dent. 2014, 17, 301–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  29. Senawongse, P.; Pongprueksa, P. Surface roughness of nanofill and nanohybrid resin composites after polishing and brushing. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 2007, 19, 265–273, discussion 274–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ergucu, Z.; Turkun, L.S.; Aladag, A. Color stability of nanocomposites polished with one-step systems. Oper. Dent. 2008, 33, 413–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Ozel, E.; Korkmaz, Y.; Attar, N.; Karabulut, E. Effect of one-step polishing systems on surface roughness of different flowable restorative materials. Dent. Mater. J. 2008, 27, 755–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Scheibe, K.G.B.A.; Almeida, K.G.B.; Medeiros, I.S.; Costa, J.F.; Alves, C.M.C. Effect of different polishing systems on the surface roughness of microhybrid composites. J. Appl. Oral Sci. 2009, 17, 21–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Atabek, D.; Sillelioglu, H.; Olmez, A. The efficiency of a new polishing material: Nanotechnology liquid polish. Oper. Dent. 2010, 35, 362–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. da Silva, J.M.; da Rocha, D.M.; Travassos, A.C.; Fernandes, V.V., Jr.; Rodrigues, J.R. Effect of different finishing times on surface roughness and maintenance of polish in nanoparticle and microhybrid composite resins. Eur. J. Esthet. Dent. 2010, 5, 288–298. [Google Scholar]
  35. Janus, J.; Fauxpoint, G.; Arntz, Y.; Pelletier, H.; Etienne, O. Surface roughness and morphology of three nanocomposites after two different polishing treatments by a multitechnique approach. Dent. Mater. 2010, 26, 416–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Antonson, S.A.; Yazici, A.R.; Kilinc, E.; Antonson, D.E.; Hardigan, P.C. Comparison of different finishing/polishing systems on surface roughness and gloss of resin composites. J. Dent. 2011, 39 (Suppl. 1), e9–e17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Berger, S.B.; Palialol, A.R.; Cavalli, V.; Giannini, M. Surface roughness and staining susceptibility of composite resins after finishing and polishing. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 2011, 23, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Buchgraber, B.; Kqiku, L.; Allmer, N.; Jakopic, G.; Stadtler, P. Surface roughness of one nanofill and one silorane composite after polishing. Coll. Antropol. 2011, 35, 879–883. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  39. Nunes, P.M.A.; Ferreira, S.D.S.; Sobral, M.A.P.; Turbino, M.L. Lisura superficial de resinas compostas com nanopartículas após protocolos de acabamento e polimento. Rev. Assoc. Paul. Cir. Dent. 2013, 67, 300–305. [Google Scholar]
  40. Avsar, A.; Yuzbasioglu, E.; Sarac, D. The Effect of Finishing and Polishing Techniques on the Surface Roughness and the Color of Nanocomposite Resin Restorative Materials. Adv. Clin. Exp. Med. 2015, 24, 881–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Aytac, F.; Karaarslan, E.S.; Agaccioglu, M.; Tastan, E.; Buldur, M.; Kuyucu, E. Effects of Novel Finishing and Polishing Systems on Surface Roughness and Morphology of Nanocomposites. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 2016, 28, 247–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. de Carvalho Justo Fernandes, A.C.B.; de Assunção, I.V.; Borges, B.C.D.; da Costa, G.d.F.A. Impact of additional polishing on the roughness and surface morphology of dental composite resins. Rev. Port. Estomatol. Med. Dent. Maxilofac. 2016, 57, 74–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Alfawaz, Y. Impact of Polishing Systems on the Surface Roughness and Microhardness of Nanocomposites. J. Contemp. Dent. Pract. 2017, 18, 647–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Alawjali, S.S.; Lui, J.L. Effect of one-step polishing system on the color stability of nanocomposites. J. Dent. 2013, 41 (Suppl 3), e53–e61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Weinstein, A.R. Anterior composite resins and veneers: Treatment planning, preparation, and finishing. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 1988, 117, 38E–45E. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Baseren, M. Surface roughness of nanofill and nanohybrid composite resin and ormocer-based tooth-colored restorative materials after several finishing and polishing procedures. J. Biomater. Appl. 2004, 19, 121–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Flowchart of searching and selection process of articles for the systematic review (2007–2020).
Figure 1. Flowchart of searching and selection process of articles for the systematic review (2007–2020).
Dentistry 09 00095 g001
Figure 2. Surface roughness according to number of steps for the polishing systems (PS). Note: Each bar, listed from 1 to 5, represents the mean value (±SD) reached in Ra µm according to the number of steps of the PS. * SD = Standard Deviation.
Figure 2. Surface roughness according to number of steps for the polishing systems (PS). Note: Each bar, listed from 1 to 5, represents the mean value (±SD) reached in Ra µm according to the number of steps of the PS. * SD = Standard Deviation.
Dentistry 09 00095 g002
Figure 3. Surface roughness according to the polishing system (PS). Note: The figure represents, on the X axis, the PS and, on the Y axis, the surface roughness reached in Ra µm. The height of each bar represents the mean Ra (±SD) obtained for each PS. * SD = Standard Deviation. List of abbreviations for type of PS: Ap (Astropol), SSR (Super-snap Rainbow Technique Kit [Shofu]), SL (Sof-Lex Discs [4 SPS]), SL TM (Sof-LexTM Pop-On + felt disc associated to diamond paste [Diamond GlossTM]), EXL (EXL-695), FD E (FlexiDisc and Enamelize), MS (Mylar strip), P + F (Práxis TDV + felt disc associated to diamond paste [Diamond GlossTM]), SL TM + A (Sof-LexTM Pop-On + Astrobrush), E + CUP (Enhance + CUP shape Prisma Gloss paste), C (CompoSystem), CTD (Clearfil Twist Dia), P (Praxis TDV), P + A (Práxis TDV + Astrobrush), E(Enhance), POGO (PoGo), SL S (Sof-Lex Spiral Finishing & Polishing Wheels), F + F + D (Fine grit diamond burs 30μm and extra-fine diamond burs 20μm + Felt disks + diamond paste), OP (OptraPol), SL 3 (Sof-Lex Discs [3 SPS]), 12C (12 then 30 fluted carbide finishing bur), SR (Silicone rubber Kerr), OG (One Gloss), E + P (Enhance + PoGo), OC (Occlubrush), F + D (Felt disks + diamond paste), E + P (Enhance + PoGo + nanotechnology liquid polish [lasting touch]), L (Lasting Touch), F + EF (Fine then extrafine diamond finishing bur).
Figure 3. Surface roughness according to the polishing system (PS). Note: The figure represents, on the X axis, the PS and, on the Y axis, the surface roughness reached in Ra µm. The height of each bar represents the mean Ra (±SD) obtained for each PS. * SD = Standard Deviation. List of abbreviations for type of PS: Ap (Astropol), SSR (Super-snap Rainbow Technique Kit [Shofu]), SL (Sof-Lex Discs [4 SPS]), SL TM (Sof-LexTM Pop-On + felt disc associated to diamond paste [Diamond GlossTM]), EXL (EXL-695), FD E (FlexiDisc and Enamelize), MS (Mylar strip), P + F (Práxis TDV + felt disc associated to diamond paste [Diamond GlossTM]), SL TM + A (Sof-LexTM Pop-On + Astrobrush), E + CUP (Enhance + CUP shape Prisma Gloss paste), C (CompoSystem), CTD (Clearfil Twist Dia), P (Praxis TDV), P + A (Práxis TDV + Astrobrush), E(Enhance), POGO (PoGo), SL S (Sof-Lex Spiral Finishing & Polishing Wheels), F + F + D (Fine grit diamond burs 30μm and extra-fine diamond burs 20μm + Felt disks + diamond paste), OP (OptraPol), SL 3 (Sof-Lex Discs [3 SPS]), 12C (12 then 30 fluted carbide finishing bur), SR (Silicone rubber Kerr), OG (One Gloss), E + P (Enhance + PoGo), OC (Occlubrush), F + D (Felt disks + diamond paste), E + P (Enhance + PoGo + nanotechnology liquid polish [lasting touch]), L (Lasting Touch), F + EF (Fine then extrafine diamond finishing bur).
Dentistry 09 00095 g003
Figure 4. Surface roughness according to the composite resin used. The figure represents, on the X axis, the resin used and, on the Y axis, the surface roughness in Ra µm. The height of each bar represents the mean of Ra (±SD) obtained according to each composite resin. * SD = Standard Deviation. List of abbreviations for type of composite resin: FS XT T (Filtek Supreme XT [transparent shade]), FS XT D (Filtek Supreme XT [dentin shade]), TE (Tetric EvoCeram), F Z350 (Filtek Z350), AAE (Aelite Aesthetic Enamel), S D6 (Synegy D6), EX (Evolu-X), ES (Estelite Sigma), C X (Ceram X), FS (Filtek Supreme), TC (Tetric Ceram), P (Premise), Z (Zenit), G (Grandio), CD (Charisma Diamond), AE (Aelite Enamel), CME (Clearfil Majesty Esthetic), I (Ice), FM (Fill Magic®), S (Smile), TS (TPH Spectrum®).
Figure 4. Surface roughness according to the composite resin used. The figure represents, on the X axis, the resin used and, on the Y axis, the surface roughness in Ra µm. The height of each bar represents the mean of Ra (±SD) obtained according to each composite resin. * SD = Standard Deviation. List of abbreviations for type of composite resin: FS XT T (Filtek Supreme XT [transparent shade]), FS XT D (Filtek Supreme XT [dentin shade]), TE (Tetric EvoCeram), F Z350 (Filtek Z350), AAE (Aelite Aesthetic Enamel), S D6 (Synegy D6), EX (Evolu-X), ES (Estelite Sigma), C X (Ceram X), FS (Filtek Supreme), TC (Tetric Ceram), P (Premise), Z (Zenit), G (Grandio), CD (Charisma Diamond), AE (Aelite Enamel), CME (Clearfil Majesty Esthetic), I (Ice), FM (Fill Magic®), S (Smile), TS (TPH Spectrum®).
Dentistry 09 00095 g004
Table 1. Application of guidelines for reporting preclinical in vitro studies on dental materials for the selected studies in the systematic review (n = 17).
Table 1. Application of guidelines for reporting preclinical in vitro studies on dental materials for the selected studies in the systematic review (n = 17).
First Author, YearItem N° *
1234567891011121314
Senawongse, 2007 [29]YesYesYesYesYesYesNoYesYesYesYesNoYesNo
Ergucu, 2008 [30]YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesNoNoNo
Ozel, 2008 [31]YesYesNoYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesNoNo
Scheibe, 2009 [32]YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesNoNoNo
Atabek, 2010 [33]YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesNoYesNo
da Silva, 2010 [34]YesYesYesYesYesNoYesYesNoYesYesNoYesNo
Janus, 2010 [35]YesYesNoYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesNoNo
Antonson, 2011 [36]NoYesYesYesYesYesYesYesNoYesYesYesYesNo
Berger, 2011 [37]YesYesYesYesYesNoYesYesNoYesYesYesYesNo
Buchgraber, 2011 [38]YesYesYesYesYesNoYesYesNoYesYesNoYesNo
Erdemir, 2012 [3]YesNoYesYesYesYesYesYesNoYesYesYesNoNo
Nunes, 2013 [39]YesYesYesYesYesYesNoYesYesYesYesNoNoNo
Avsar, 2015 [40]YesYesYesYesYesYesNoYesYesYesYesNoNoNo
Aytac, 2016 [41]YesYesYesYesYesNoNoYesYesYesYesNoYesNo
Yadav, 2016 [20]NoYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesNoNoNo
de Carvalho Justo Fernandes, 2016 [42]YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesNo
Alfawaz, 2017 [43]YesYesNoYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesNoNoNo
* Item 1: summary; Item 2: Introduction, background and objectives; Item 3: methods, intervention; Item 4: results; Item 5: sample size; Item 6: randomization, generation of sequences; Item 7: allocation concealment mechanism; Item 8: implementation; Item 9: blinding; Item 10: statistical methods; Item 11: results and estimation; Item 12: discussion, limitations; Item 13: other information, financing; Item 14: protocol.
Table 2. Main characteristics of the studies included in the systematic review (n = 17).
Table 2. Main characteristics of the studies included in the systematic review (n = 17).
First Author, YearCountryType of Resin (TR)Resin Manufacturer (RM)Finishing
System (FS)
Polishing System (PS)PS Manufacturer
Senawongse, 2007 [29]ThailandTetric CeramIvoclar VivadentN.ISof-Lex Discs3M ESPE
Filtek Z3503M ESPEAstropolIvoclar Vivadent
Filtek Supreme XT (dentin shade)3M ESPE
Filtek Supreme XT (transparent shade)3M ESPE
Estelite SigmaTokuyama, Tokyo, Japan
Tetric EvoCeramIvoclar Vivadent
Ceram XDentsply
PremiseKerr Corporation
Ergucu, 2008 [30]TurkeyFiltek Supreme3M ESPE320 grit silicon carbide paperPoGoDentsply
GrandioVocoOptraPolIvoclar Vivadent
Tetric CeramIvoclar VivadentOne GlossShofu Dental Corp
PremiseKerr Corporation
Ceram XDentsply
Ozel, 2008 [31]TurkeyFiltek Supreme3M ESPE1200-grit silicon carbide paper.PoGoDentsply
Ceram XDentsplyOptraPolIvoclar Vivadent
Aelite Aesthetic EnamelBisco, Inc. Schaumburg, IL, USASof-Lex Discs3M Espe
Tetric CeramIvoclar Vivadent
GrandioVoco
Scheibe, 2009 [32]BrazilCharisma DiamondHeraeus KulzerFine grit diamond burs and extra-fine diamond bursSof-Lex Discs3M Espe
Fill Magic®Vigodent, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, BrazilEnhance + PoGoDentsply
TPH Spectrum®DentsplyFelt disks + diamond pasteFGM Ind.
Atabek, 2010 [33]TurkeyCeram XDentsplyCarbide bursEnhance + PoGoDentsply
Clearfil Majesty EstheticKurarayLasting Touch
Enhance + PoGo + nanotechnology liquid polish (lasting touch)
da Silva, 2010 [34]BrazilFiltek Z3503M ESPEExtrafine diamond tip No 3195FEnhance + PoGoDentsply
Janus, 2010 [35]FranceFiltek Supreme3M ESPEN.ISof-Lex Discs3M Espe
GrandioVocoCompoSystemKomet, Gebr. Brasseler GmbH&Co (Lemgo, Germany)
Synegy D6Coltene Whaledent AG (Altstatten, Switzerland)
Tetric CeramIvoclar Vivadent
Antonson, 2011 [36]USAFiltek Supreme3M ESPE1200 grit size sand paperAstropolIvoclar Vivadent
Enhance + PoGoDentsply
Sof-Lex Discs3M Espe
EXL-6953M Espe
Berger, 2011 [37]BrazilFiltek Supreme3M ESPEN.ISof-Lex Discs3M Espe
FlexiDisc and EnamelizeCosmedent Inc
Enhance + PoGoDentsply
Buchgraber, 2011 [38]AustriaFiltek Supreme3M ESPELow speed fissure bur (green, 3000 rev/min) for 10 sPoGoDentsply
Sof-Lex Discs3M Espe
Erdemir, 2012 [3]TurkeyFiltek Supreme3M ESPE1200 grit silicon carbide paper.PoGoDentsply
Ceram XDentsplySof-Lex Discs3M Espe
GrandioVoco
Nunes, 2013 [39]BrazilCharisma DiamondHeraeus KulzerN.ISof-Lex Discs3M ESPE
PremiseKerr CorporationEnhanceDentsply
Filtek Supreme3M ESPEFine grit diamond burs 30μm and extra-fine diamond burs 20 μm + Felt disks + diamond pasteKG Sorensen / FGM Ind.
Avsar, 2015 [40]TurkeyGrandioVoco1000 grit silicon carbide paperSof-Lex Discs3M Espe
IceSDI, Victoria, AustraliaSilicone rubber KerrKerr
SmilePentron, Wallingford, CT, USA12 then 30 fluted carbide finishing burKG, Sorensen, Barueri, Brazil
Aelite EnamelBisco, Inc. Schaumburg, IL, USAFine then extra-fine diamond finishing burKG, Sorensen, Barueri, Brazil
PremiseKerr Corporation
Filtek Supreme3M Espe
Aytac, 2016 [41]TurkeyEstelite Ʃ QuickTokuyama, Tokyo, Japan1000 grit silicon carbide paper.OcclubrushKerr
Clearfil Majesty EstheticKurarayClearfil Twist DiaKuraray
ZenitPresidentSof-Lex Spiral Finishing & Polishing Wheels3M Espe
Filtek Z5503M EspeSof-Lex Discs3M Espe
Yadav, 2016 [20]IndiaCeram XDentsplydiamond burs 50 µm + Super Snap Rainbow Technique Kit VIOLETSuper-snap Rainbow Technique KitShofu Dental Corp
diamond burs 50 µmSof-Lex Discs3M Espe
diamond burs 50 µm + Enhance, tip shape.Enhance + discs impregnated with Gloss Prisma paste.Dentsply
de Carvalho Justo Fernandes, 2016 [42]BrazilEvolu-XDentsplyN.ISof-Lex Discs3M ESPE
Sof-LexTM Pop-On + felt disc associated to diamond paste (Diamond GlossTM)KG, Sorensen, Barueri, Brazil
Sof-LexTM Pop-On + AstrobrushIvoclar Vivadent
Práxis TDVTDV Dental Ltd.a.
Práxis TDV + felt disc associated to diamond paste (Diamond GlossTM)KG, Sorensen, Barueri, Brazil
Práxis TDV + AstrobrushIvoclar Vivadent
Alfawaz, 2017 [43]Saudi ArabiaFiltek Z3503M ESPE600 grit silicon carbide paperPoGoDentsply
Ceram XDentsplySof-Lex Discs3M Espe
N.I: No information available.
Table 3. Summary of the polishing protocols (PP) according to the studies provided in the systematic review (n = 17).
Table 3. Summary of the polishing protocols (PP) according to the studies provided in the systematic review (n = 17).
Polishing System (PS)Polishing Protocol (PP)Number of Steps Polishing System (SPS)Total Samples (TS)Average in
Microns
According to the Protocol (RA)
12 then 30 fluted carbide finishing burN.I2480.3713
Astropol20 s/---rpm350.1200
60 s/12,000 rpm800.0500
Clearfil Twist Dia45 s/10,000 rpm2400.2000
CompoSystem20 s/Medium 10,000 rpm, Fine 1000 rpm, Ultrafine 10,000 rpm3240.1520
Enhance20 s/---RPM1300.2167
Enhance + CUP shape Prisma Gloss paste30 s/---rpm3100.1457
Enhance + PoGo30 s/20,000 rpm2100.8400
20 s/---rpm170.3240
N.I200.7250
30 s/---rpm270.4960
Enhance + PoGo + nanotechnology liquid polish (lasting touch)N. I3200.675
EXL-69520 s/---rpm250.1200
Felt disks + diamond paste60 s/---rpm1270.6396
Fine grit diamond burs 30 μm and extra-fine diamond burs 20 μm + Felt disks + diamond paste20 s/---RPM3300.2933
Fine then extrafine diamond finishing burN.I21810.350
FlexiDisc and Enamelize30 s/20,000 rpm4100.1260
Lasting TouchN.I1200.9850
Occlubrush45 s/10,000 rpm1200.5933
One Gloss30 s/15,000 rpm1250.4606
OptraPol30 s/15,000 rpm1750.3289
PoGo30 s/---rpm1210.2360
10 s/---rpm50.5600
30 s/15,000 rpm950.201
Práxis TDV30 s/---rpm450.2080
Práxis TDV + Astrobrush30 s/---rpm550.2100
Práxis TDV + felt disc associated to diamond paste (Diamond GlossTM)30 s/---rpm550.1320
Silicone rubber KerrN. I2480.3907
Sof-Lex Discs10 s/---rpm450.1450
30 s/20,000 rpm100.1000
20 s/Coarse 10,000 rpm, Medium 10,000 rpm, Fine 30,000 rpm, Superfine 30,000 rpm240.1213
60 s/12,000 rpm800.0479
20 s/---rpm300.1800
30 s/---rpm50.1860
N.I3100.0430
45 s/10,000 rpm400.1725
30 s/20,000 rpm with water cooling480.3843
30 s/---rpm210.2433
30 s/15,000 rpm700.2188
20 s/---rpm3210.266
Sof-Lex Spiral Finishing & Polishing Wheels45 s/10,000 rpm3400.2475
Sof-LexTM Pop-On + Astrobrush30 s/---rpm550.1400
Sof-LexTM Pop-On + felt disc associated to diamond paste (Diamond GlossTM)30 s/---rpm550.1120
Super-snap Rainbow Technique KitN.I3100.0799
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jaramillo-Cartagena, R.; López-Galeano, E.J.; Latorre-Correa, F.; Agudelo-Suárez, A.A. Effect of Polishing Systems on the Surface Roughness of Nano-Hybrid and Nano-Filling Composite Resins: A Systematic Review. Dent. J. 2021, 9, 95. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/dj9080095

AMA Style

Jaramillo-Cartagena R, López-Galeano EJ, Latorre-Correa F, Agudelo-Suárez AA. Effect of Polishing Systems on the Surface Roughness of Nano-Hybrid and Nano-Filling Composite Resins: A Systematic Review. Dentistry Journal. 2021; 9(8):95. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/dj9080095

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jaramillo-Cartagena, Robinson, Eider J. López-Galeano, Federico Latorre-Correa, and Andrés A. Agudelo-Suárez. 2021. "Effect of Polishing Systems on the Surface Roughness of Nano-Hybrid and Nano-Filling Composite Resins: A Systematic Review" Dentistry Journal 9, no. 8: 95. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/dj9080095

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop