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 .
Comparison of two-step versus four-step composite finishing/polishing disc systems: evaluation of a new two-step composite polishing disc system.
OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to evaluate surface finish and gloss of a two-step  composite finishing/polishing ( F/P ) disc system compared with two multistep systems on five composites . METHODS Seventy-five disc-shaped composite specimens ( D=10.0 mm , 2 mm thick , n=15 per composite ) were made of microfill ( Durafill-D ) , nanofill ( Filtek Supreme-FS ) , nanohybrid ( Premise-PR ) , and microhybrids ( Filtek Z250-FZ , Esthet-EX ) . One side of each specimen was initially finished with a carbide bur . Five specimens of each resin composite were r and omly assigned to receive full F/P by each of the disc systems : two-step ( Enhance Flex NST-EF ) and four-step ( Sof-Lex-SL , Super-Snap-SS ) . Surface gloss was measured with a glossmeter and surface roughness was measured with a profilometer . Results were analyzed by two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)/Tukey 's ( α<0.05 ) . RESULTS No difference in gloss was noted among the three F/P systems when used with D and EX ; no difference between SL and EF when used with any composite , except for FS ; and no difference between SL and SS when used with any composite . SL and EF showed similar surface roughness when used on all composites , except for EX . EF and SS showed similar surface roughness on PR . SL and SS showed similar surface roughness values on every composite , except for FZ . CONCLUSIONS EF was capable of providing similar gloss and surface roughness to SL on four composites evaluated but was not able to produce as glossy or as smooth a surface as SS for three of the five composites
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 .