Sakrana et al.

Int Chin J Dent 2004; 4: 85-91.

Surface roughness evaluation of polished composite using threedimension profilometry
Amal Abd El-Samad Sakrana, DDS, PhD,a Ossama Badie Abouelatta, BSc, MSc, PhD,bHideo Matsumura, DDS, PhD,c Hiroyasu Koizumi, DDS, PhD,c and Naomi Tanoue, DDS,
PhDd
a

b

Mansoura University Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University Faculty of Engineering, Mansoura,cdEgypt, Nihon University School of Dentistry, Tokyo, Japan, and Nagasaki University Hospital of
Medicine and Dentistry, Nagasaki, Japan
Purpose: This study evaluated the surface roughness of two composite materials using a three-dimension (3D)
profilometer following four clinically-acceptable finishing techniques.
Materials and Methods: Disk specimens (9x3 mm) made of two composite materials, Filtek Z250 and Pertac II
Aplitip, (n=30) were prepared. Each material group was further subdivided into five additional groups (n=6).
This provided a control group (unpolished) and four polishing technique groups described as follows: Arkansasstone, aluminum oxide disks (Sof-Lex), diamond point, or silicone points. A 3D profilometer was employed tomeasure the surface roughness parameters Sa, Ssk, Sku, Sz, Sdc, Spk, Sk, and Svk for each specimen. A
diamond stylus tip with a 5 µm radius was used at a tracing speed of 0.3 mm/s. The measured area was 0.948
mm2. The results were expressed in µm and analyzed by analysis of variance (ANOVA).
Results: Scratches and striations were microscopically observed in polished specimens and the filler resin was
clearly evident in the control. The results of ANOVA revealed that the polishing techniques had a statisticallysignificant effect on Sa, Ssk, Sdc, Sk, and Svk, but not on Sku and Spk. The type of composite had a significant
effect on Ssk, Sku, Sz and Spk, but not on Sa, Sdc, Sk, and Svk (P<0.01). Considering only the specimens
grouped according to the polishing techniques, optimum smoothness was realized with diamond points andaluminum oxide disks, and the most surface irregularities were measured with for control and specimens
polished with the silicone point. The mean value of roughness parameters of Pertac was lower than thoserecorded for Z250.
Conclusion: The diamond point provided the lowest roughness parameters whereas the silicone points andcontrol recorded the highest roughness parameters. (Int Chin J Dent 2004; 4: 85-91.)
Clinical Significance: Fine diamond point and aluminum oxide were shown most suitable for polishing
disc-shaped specimens of Z250 and Pertac composite because lower 3D roughness parameters were recorded.
The Arkansas stone and silicone points appear less suitable for polishing of the composite materials tested.
Key Words: composite, polish, roughness, surface.

Introduction
Proper finishing and polishing are important steps that enhance both esthetics and longevity of restored
teeth.1,2 Various techniques have been studied to produce a smooth composite surface.3-9 Berastegui and Tjan
stated microfilled composites provide smooth surfaces after polishing with an aluminum oxide polishing system,and produce less roughness after polishing with diamond, carbide, and Arkansas rotary instruments.10,11
Characterization of the surface texture of composites has become increasingly important because it isrecognized as a key factor affecting function in clinical service. Measurement and analysis of the surface ofcomposites provide an excellent diagnostic tool for comparing both various proprietary composites materials andthe process that produces the polished surface. There is a desire to understand the three-dimensional (3D)
surface structure of an observed material because of the 3D nature of the surface and its interactions in vivo.
Currently refined measurement and analysis techniques have provided tools and approaches required to carry out
sophisticated analysis of surface topography.12-14 This study investigated the surface roughness, using 3D
profilometry, of two composite restorations using four clinically-acceptable finishing techniques.

85

Sakrana et al.

Int Chin J Dent 2004; 4: 85-91.

Materials and Methods
Two commercially-available composite restorative materials were used: a micro-fine hybrid composite (Filtek
Z250, 3M Dental Products, St. Paul, MN, USA) and a radiopaque, quartz-based, fine-particle hybrid composite(Pertac II Aplitip, ESPE Dental AG, Seefeld, Germany). The Z250 composite consists of zirconia/silica (60
vol%, 0.01-3.5 µm, adduct of bisphenol A and glycidyl methacrylate (Bis-GMA), urethane dimethacrylate(UDMA), and adduct of bisphenol A and polyetheylene glycol monomethacrylate (Bis-EMA). The Pertac II
composite contains quartz inorganic filler (54 vol%, 0.5-3.0 µm) and hydrophobic bifunctional methacrylates. A
total of 60 specimens were prepared in a poly(tetrafluoroethylene) (PTFE) split-mold (9x3 mm, n=30 for eachmaterial). The composite material was dispensed into the mold. Each specimen was polymerized for 50 s with avisible light-polymerizing unit (Degulux, Degussa Hüls, Frankfurt, Germany).
Each set of specific material specimens was further divided into five groups, each receiving a different
finishing regimen (n=6). Where specific finishing and polishing devices were used, a new device was used foreach specimen. Group A was finished with bullet-shaped Arkansas FG stone points (Meissinger, Düsseldorf,
Germany) using high-speed handpiece for 30 s. Group B was finished with aluminum oxide disks (Sof-Lex, 3M
Dental Products), in four textures: coarse, medium, fine, and extra-fine with 150, 360, 600, and 1,200 grit sizes.
These specimens were sequentially processed using water irrigation and a low-speed handpiece for 30 s, except
for the extra-fine that was used for 10 s. Group C was finished with flame-shaped fine-grit diamond points(Edenta, AG, CH9434 AU/SG, Switzerland) using high-speed handpiece for 15 s. Group D was finished withcone-shaped fine grit silicone polisher points (Kenda, AG, Vaduz, Liechtenstein) using a low-speed handpiecefor 30 s. The control group E remained unfinished. The specimens were rinsed with water and dried for 24hours before surface roughness measurements. Selected photographs were taken using a light microscope.
To measure surface roughness, a portable face texture-measuring instrument was fabricated to develop an
automatic 3D surface roughness scanning system. The system collects surface topography data from parallel
profiles taken from areas up to 12.5x50 mm. The system consisted of a personal computer, an A/D converter, aconventional profilometer (Handysurf E-10A, Advanced Metrology Systems Ltd., Leicester, UK), and a
precision table of a measure scope (Measurescope-10, Nikon Corp., Tokyo, Japan) derived by a stepper motorand its controller to provide the X-Y motion of the precision table with an accuracy of 1 µm (Fig. 1).

3D surface roughness
parameters

Handysurf
stylusHandysurf
digital unit

A/D
converter

Personalcomputer

3D graphs(Isometric & solid)

2D roughness
parameters & profilegraphsX-Y table of Nikon
Measurescope-10

Stepper motor

Stepper motor
controller

Fig. 1. Illustration of components of 3D profilometer.

86

Autopower
supplySakrana et al.

Int Chin J Dent 2004; 4: 85-91.

A special software program was developed to control the precision table movements and the measurements ofsurface heights. In addition, another software program was produced for calculating 3D surface roughness
parameters. The surface heights were sampled as digital data and saved to a file on the computer. The data wasused for the computation of 2D and 3D roughness parameters, for contour mapping, and for isometric plots. The
following 3D roughness parameters were measured for the 60 specimens: (1) Sa=arithmetic mean deviation of
the surface in µm; (2) Ssk=skewness of the surface height distribution; (3) Sku=kurtosis of the surface height
distribution; (4) Sz=ten-point height of the surface in µm; (5) Sdc=material volume between 10% and 50% inµm; (6) Spk=reduced summit height in µ m; (7) Sk=core roughness depth in µ m; and (8) Svk=reduced valley
depth in µm (Table 1). The measured area was 0.948 mm2. Tracing speed using a diamond tip with a 5 µm
stylus was 0.3 mm/s. The pickup transducer employed was a displacement/inductance transducer. A statisticalanalysis of recordings was computed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) test (P<0.01).
Table 1. Surface roughness parameters and indications.
Parameters

Observations

Sa
Ssk
Sku
Sz
Sdc
Spk
Sk
Svk

Smaller values indicate smoother surfaces.
Smaller values (negative values) indicate good food retention and good bearing area.
Higher values indicate better and smoother surfaces.
Higher values indicate good food retention and staining.
Smaller values indicate good food retention and staining.
Higher values indicate initial higher stresses.
Higher values indicate stable load distribution after a period of mastication.
Smaller values indicate good food retention.

Results
Fig. 2 shows optical micrographs of composites. The unpolished control groups revealed high concentrationsof organic matrix in the composite surface. The polished surfaces showed the prints of abrasive material in thecomposites. Fillers were not evident in the surface of the polished Z250 composite, but a few were evident in
the Pertac composite. Fig. 3 show 3D topography of the composite surfaces. Polished and control groups
presented the differences of roughness profile related to finishing instrument types.
Tables 2 represents the results of the arithmetic mean and standard deviation (SD) of roughness parameters of
Sa, Ssk, Sku, Sz, Sdc10%-50%, Spk, Sk, and Svk of Z250 and Pertac composites. The minimal value of Sa wasrecorded for diamond and silicone while the maximal value (poorest) was recorded for the control. The maximal
values of Ssk were recorded for Sof-Lex and diamond in Z250 and for diamond and silicone in Pertac, and theminimum value was observed with the control group. The maximum values of Sku were observed with Sof-Lex
and diamond for Z250 and with silicone and diamond for Pertac. The extreme minimal values of Sz, Sdc, Sk,
and Svk were seen for the diamond abrasion finishing, whereas the extreme maximal values were recorded forthe control. Low level of Spk was seen with the silicon and diamond abrasive finished surfaces, while high levelof Spk was recorded for both the control and Sof-Lex finished surfaces.
The polishing methods revealed a statistically significant effect on Sa, Ssk, Sdc, Sk, and Svk, but lack ofstatistically significant differences for Sku and Spk (P<0.01). The comparison of the two composite resins also
revealed a statistically significant effect for Ssk, Sku, Sz, and Spk, but no statistically significant difference for87Sakrana et al.

Z250 Control

Int Chin J Dent 2004; 4: 85-91.

Z250 Arkansas

Pertac Control

Pertac Arkansas

Z250 Sof-Lex

Pertac Sof-Lex

Fig. 2. Optical micrographs of composites.

Control ||Arkansas |Diamond |Sof-Lex
Silicone

Z250 composite

Control ||Arkansas |Diamond |Sof-Lex
Silicone

Pertac composite

Fig. 3. Selected 3D topographies of the composite materials.

88

Z250 Diamond

Pertac Diamond

Z250 Silicone

Pertac Silicone

Sakrana et al.

Int Chin J Dent 2004; 4: 85-91.

Table 2. Roughness parameters for the Z250 and Pertac composites.

Z250 composite
Sa
Ssk
Sku
Sz
Sdc
Spk
Sk
Svk
Pertac composite
Sa
Ssk
Sku
Sz
Sdc
Spk
Sk
Svk

Control
Mean SD

Arkansas
Mean SD

Sof-Lex
Mean SD

Diamond
Mean SD

Silicone
Mean SD

1.70 0.56
0.49 1.07
4.90 4.27
14.91 1.62
2.76 0.96
2.67 0.86
4.87 1.90
1.90 1.39

1.23 0.12
0.93 0.38
4.74 1.35
12.71 0.39
2.35 0.18
2.62 0.19
3.53 0.56
0.90 0.24

1.17 0.14
1.09 0.68
5.50 2.46
12.58 1.17
2.21 0.25
2.78 0.59
3.24 0.72
0.88 0.26

1.11 0.09
1.04 0.11
5.17 0.45
12.03 0.53
2.08 0.26
2.57 0.20
3.17 0.25
0.78 0.08

1.10 0.18
0.81 0.15
4.51 0.63
12.03 1.26
2.01 0.33
2.30 0.23
3.30 0.61
0.85 0.15

1.42 0.60
0.15 0.49
3.39 0.69
11.93 2.76
2.39 1.17
2.04 0.94
4.20 1.80
1.57 0.90

1.43 0.25
0.23 0.13
3.24 0.60
12.34 1.08
2.45 0.55
2.17 0.22
4.47 0.97
1.44 0.27

1.18 0.24
0.38 0.25
3.66 0.57
11.40 1.00
2.03 0.48
2.07 0.34
3.59 0.78
1.21 0.24

1.10 0.06
0.58 0.12
4.01 0.37
10.99 0.55
1.89 0.18
2.18 0.18
3.33 0.18
1.03 0.05

1.14 0.12
0.53 0.21
4.14 0.77
12.10 0.68
1.95 0.27
2.17 0.15
3.49 0.44
1.11 0.12

Sa, Sdc, Sk, and Svk (P<0.01). Considering only the groups according to the polishing techniques, the least
surface roughness was found with diamond points and Sof-Lex discs, and the greatest surface roughness wasrecorded with the control and silicone points.

Discussion
Composite restorations cannot be finished to an absolutely smooth surface because the cutting particles(abrasive) of the finishing material must be relatively harder than the fillers.8,9 This study revealed that Pertac
composite finished with a less rough surface than Z250 composite. This might be attributed to the inorganic
macrofiller size and/or hardness in Pertac that resisted and protected the abrasion of the material. When thecomposite was subjected to abrasion, the matrix between and around the filler particles may be lost, leading to a
protruding and eventual plucking of these particles, resulting craters, scratches, and striations from the abrasive
grits.
Historically, Sa (Ra in two dimensions) is one of the first parameters used to quantify surface texture. Most
surface texture specifications include Sa, either as a primary measurement, or as a reference. Unfortunately, Sa
may be misleading in that many surfaces with grossly different features may have the same Sa, but may function
quite differently. Sa only quantifies the “absolute” magnitude of the surface heights and is insensitive to thespatial distribution of the surface heights. Sa is also insensitive to the “polarity” of the surface texture in that a
deep valley or a high peak will result in the same Sa value. Despite its shortcomings, once a process for forming
a surface has been established, Sa may be used as a good monitor as to whether something may have changed
during subsequent production of the surface. The best (minimum) values of Sa were observed for diamond andsilicone, and the maximum (the poorest) values were recorded in case of control.
Ssk is a measure of the "skewness" or symmetry of the surface. Since the height values are "cubed" prior to
the integration/averaging, the polarity of the surface is maintained. Thus a surface with predominantly deep
valleys will tend to have a negative skew, whereas a surface comprised of disproportionate number of peaks will
have a positive skew. Ssk may be used to quantify the symmetry of the surface as it may relate to various

89Sakrana et al.

Int Chin J Dent 2004; 4: 85-91.

considerations such as particulate retention. The best (maximum) values of Ssk were recorded for Sof-Lex with
Z250 and diamond points with Pertac, but the poorest (minimal) values were observed with the control.
Sku is the degree of concentration around the mean value of an amplitude distribution curve.

Skucharacterizes the anomalies in the surface height distributions in that a normally (i.e. following a Gaussian orbell curve distribution) distributed surface texture would tend to have a Sku of 3. When the surface texture iscomposed of non-normally distributed high peaks or deep valleys, the Sku becomes very large. When thesurface is composed of a gradually varyingor “rolling-hill” type texture, the Sku will be less than 3. Sku is agood indicator of when an otherwise normally distributed surface may have some defects. Sku might be used to
identify the presence of surface defects and inordinate peaks or valleys. Sku is evaluated by taking the “fourth
power” of the surface heights. The best results of Sku were observed with Sof-Lex and diamond surface finishes
for Z250 and with silicone and diamond surface finishes for Pertac.
Sz may be used to characterize the extreme features of a surface, with Sz being a nominal measure of the“Peak-Valley” range of the surface. Typical applications for Sz may include surface nicking and staining. The
best (minimum) values of Sz occurred with diamond finishing and the poorest (minimal) values were recorded
for the control of Z250 and the Arkansas finished surface of Pertac.
Material volume between 10% and 50% of heights, Sdc, is typically used to study surfaces that may
characterize either particulate retention or staining criteria. The optimal values of Sdc were observed for
diamond and silicone finished surfaces, whereas the poorest values were recorded in the control.
A high Spk implies a surface composed of high peaks providing small initial contact area and thus high areasof stress (force/area) when the surface is contacted. Thus Spk may represent the nominal height of the material
that might be postulated to be removed during abrasive masticatory function.
Sk represents the core roughness of the surface over which a load may be distributed, after a period ofabrasive function. Svk is a measure of the valley depths below the core roughness and may be related toparticulate retention. The optimal values of Sk and Svk occurred with diamond finished surfaces and the poorest
values with the control. These parameters were investigations of surface profile, especially the average of thepeaks and valleys, which are considered contributory for plaque retention and load distributions. Despite thesame finishing instrument, the mean values of these parameters for Pertac were less than that for Z250,
confirming that the composite structure itself was playing a major role in the polishing results. The result of
ANOVA ascertained that the polishing methods had a statistically significant effect on Sa, Ssk, Sdc, Sk, and Svk
without noted effect on Sku and Spk. Therefore it could be postulated that there is potential for particulateretention, bearing area, staining, and load distribution without a significant effect on smoothness of a surface andinitial stresses. The two composites themselves had a statistically significant effect on Ssk, Sku, Sz, and Spk
without a statistically significant effect on Sa, Sdc, Sk, and Svk. Therefore, there is potential for particulateretention, nicking, and staining criteria, but not a significant effect on smoothness of a surface and load
distribution.

Therefore, decreasing the size by rearranging the abrasive grits might well decrease surface

roughness.
Considering only the specimens grouped according to the polishing techniques, the most desirable results
were found with the diamond points and aluminum oxide abrasives, whereas the control and silicone polishedgroups recorded the least desirable roughness parameters. This observation coincided with studies showing that
the ESPE MFS/MPS polishing kit, which includes diamond points, provided a more clinically-acceptable

90

Sakrana et al.

Int Chin J Dent 2004; 4: 85-91.

polished composite surface than the Enhance polishing kit, which includes aluminum oxide disks.6,7 The
Sof-Lex was better for polishing a microfiller while diamond points and Arkansas stone provides better resultsfor hybrid composites.15 Also, Sof-Lex provided better surface smoothness than silicone polishers.11 Diamondpolishing and the Enhance kit produced rough surfaces for composites.7-9 The worst roughness was seen withthe control because of the air-inhibited layer on the surface, surface porosity, and high filler concentration.

Conclusions
Surface roughness of two composites polished with four abrasive systems was evaluated by 3D profilometry.
Within the limitation of this investigation, the following conclusions can be drawn.
1.

The 3D profilometry permitted multiple descriptions of the surface roughness profile of the composite
resins sampled above and beyond that possible with 2D profilometry.

2.

Fine-grain diamond points and Sof-Lex disks provided the smoothest surfaces.

3.

The silicone polishing point and control surfaces showed the roughest finishes.

4.

The design and type of abrasive affected the criteria of roughness parameters.

5.

The structure of the composite in conjunction with filler size were shown to be potentially importantfactors in composite surface roughness.

Acknowledgment
This work was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B) 16791210 (2004) from the MEXT-Japan.

References
1. Jefferies SR. The art and science of abrasive finishing and polishing in restorative dentistry. Dent Clin North Am 1998; 42:613-27.
2. Goldstein RE. Finishing of composites and laminates. Dent Clin North Am 1989; 33: 305-18.
3. Roeder LB, Tate WH, Powers JM. Effect of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface roughness of packable
composites. Oper Dent 2000; 25: 534-43.
4. Reis AF, Giannini M, Lovadino JR, dos Santos Dias CT. The effect of six polishing systems on the surface roughness of two
packable resin-based composites. Am J Dent 2002; 15: 193-7.
5. Chung K. Effects of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface texture of resin composites. Dent Mater 1994; 10:325-30.
6. Pratten DH, Johnson GH. An evaluation of finishing instruments for an anterior and a posterior composite. J Prosthet Dent
1988; 60: 154-8.
7. Kaplan BA, Goldstein BA, Vijayaraghavan GR. The effect of three polishing systems on the surface roughness of four hybrid
composites: A profilometric and scanning electron microscopy study. J Prosthet Dent 1996; 76: 34-8.
8. Chandler HH, Bowen RL, Paffenbarger GC. Method for finishing composite restorative materials. J Am Dent Assoc 1971; 83:
344-8.
9. Toledano M, De La Torre FJ, Osorio R. Evaluation of two polishing methods for resin composites. Am J Dent 1994; 7: 328-30.
10. Berastegui E, Canalda C, Brau E, Miquel C. Surface roughness of finished composites resins. J Prosthet Dent 1992; 68:
742-9.
11. Tjan AHL, Chan CA. The polishability of posterior composites. J Prosthet Dent 1989; 61: 138-46.
12. Dong WP, Sullivan PJ, Stout JK. Comprehensive study of parameters for characterizing three-dimensional surface
topography III: Parameters for characterizing amplitude and some functional properties. Wear 1994; 178: 29-43.
13. Dong WP, Sullivan PJ, Stout KJ. Comprehensive study of parameters for characterizing three-dimensional surface
topography IV: Parameters for characterizing spatial and hybrid properties. Wear 1994; 178: 45-60.
14. Lonardo PM, Trumpold H, De Chiffre L. Progress in 3D surface microtopography characterization. Annals CIRP 1996; 45:589-98.
15. Kelsey WP, Latta MA, Shaddy RS, Stanislav CM. Physical properties of three packable resin-composite restorative materials.
Oper Dent 2000; 25: 331-5.

Reprint request to:
Dr. Amal Abd El-Samad Sakrana
Department of Crown and Bridge Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University
Mansoura, Al-Dakhlia 35516, Egypt
Fax: +20-50-2244690 E-mail: shalsakran123@yahoo.com
Received September 27, 2004. Revised October 12, 2004. Accepted October 18, 2004.
Copyright ©2004 by the Editorial Council of the International Chinese Journal of Dentistry.

91