There is no in vitro evidence to support the choice for nanofill or su bmi cron composites over traditional microhybrids based on better surface smoothness and /or gloss , or based upon maintenance of those superficial characteristics after surface challenges
OBJECTIVES Despite nanofill and su bmi cron composites ' aim to provide high initial polishing combined with superior smoothness and gloss retention , the question still remains whether clinicians should consider using these new material s over traditional microhybrids .
The aim of this paper was to systematic ally review the literature on how nanofills and su bmi crons react to polishing procedures and surface challenges in vitro compared with microhybrids .
The paper has also given an overview of the compositional characteristics of all resin composites and polishing systems whose performance was presented herein .
Surface Roughness of Nanofill and Nanohybrid Composite Resin and Ormocer-based Tooth-colored Restorative Materials after Several Finishing and Polishing Procedures
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of several finishing and polishing procedures on the surface roughness of nanofill and nanohybrid composites and ormocer-based dental restorative material s. The material s included a nanofill composite ( Supreme ) ; a nanohybrid composite ( Gr and io ) ; and an ormocer ( organically modified ceramic ) ( Admira ) . Forty specimens of each material were prepared using a Mylar strip ( polyester strip ) and r and omly divided into four finishing and polishing groups ( n 1/4 10 ) : ( I ) Diamondbur/Super-snapRainbowTechniqueKit(Al2O2-coated , grade d abrasive discs ) ; ( II ) Diamond bur/Astropol and Astrobrush system ( silicone abrasive polishers and brush system ) ; ( III ) Tungsten carbide bur/Super-snap Rainbow Technique Kit ; and ( IV ) Tungsten carbide bur/Astropol and Astro-brush system . The average surface roughness ( Ra ) in micrometers was measured using a “ Mahr Perthometer S4P ” Surface Roughness Tester and the data were compared using ANOVA at P 0.05 . The results of this study indicated that the Mylar strip produced the smoothest surface on all material s and among the finishing-polishing methods the first and the third methods performed significantly smoother surfaces than the second and the fourth methods for the three restoratives . Ormocer ( Admira ) performed the lowest variability in initial surface roughness among the tested material s . This study has shown that Super-snap abrasive discs produced a smoother surface than the Astropol and Astrobrush silicone polishers for composite and ormocer-based restorative material s , but the results would be valid clinical ly for readily accessible and flat surfaces i.e. , not for all areas in the mouth . Therefore silicone polishers are necessary for posterior areas and for concave and convex surfaces
There is no in vitro evidence to support the choice for nanofill or su bmi cron composites over traditional microhybrids based on better surface smoothness and /or gloss , or based upon maintenance of those superficial characteristics after surface challenges
OBJECTIVES Despite nanofill and su bmi cron composites ' aim to provide high initial polishing combined with superior smoothness and gloss retention , the question still remains whether clinicians should consider using these new material s over traditional microhybrids .
The aim of this paper was to systematic ally review the literature on how nanofills and su bmi crons react to polishing procedures and surface challenges in vitro compared with microhybrids .
The paper has also given an overview of the compositional characteristics of all resin composites and polishing systems whose performance was presented herein .