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 .
Finishing systems on the final surface roughness of composites.
AIM This study evaluated differences in surface roughness of a  microhybrid ( Gradia Direct , GC America ) and a nanofil  ( Filtek Supreme , 3 M ESPE ) composite using four polishing systems : PoGo/Enhance ( DENTSPLY/Caulk ) , Sof-Lex ( 3 M ESPE ) , Astropol ( Ivoclar Vivadent ) , and Optidisc ( KerrHawe ) . METHODS AND MATERIAL S An aluminum mold was used to prepare 2 X 60 composite disks ( 10 mm X 2 mm ) . Composite was packed into the mold , placed between two glass slabs , and polymerized for 40 seconds from the top and bottom surfaces . Specimens were finished to a st and ard rough surface using Moore 's disks with six brushing strokes . Specimens were rinsed and stored in artificial saliva in individual plastic bags at 36 degrees C for 24 hours prior to testing . Specimens were r and omly assigned to one of the four polishing systems and were polished for 30 seconds ( 10 seconds per grit ) with brushing strokes according to the manufacturer 's instructions . Mean surface roughness ( Ra ) was recorded with a surface-analyzer 24 hours after storage in artificial saliva , both before and after polishing . Means were analyzed using two-way and one-way analysis of variance ( ANOVA ) and Tukey multiple comparison tests at p < 0.05 . RESULTS There was a statistically significant difference for baseline measures between Filtek and Gradia ( p=0.0338 ) . For Filtek , Sof-Lex provided a significantly smoother surface ( Ra=0.80 + /- 0.21 ) than Optidisc ( Ra=0.93 + /- 0.28 ) , Astropol ( Ra=1.15 + /- 0.24 ) , and Pogo/Enhance ( Ra=1.39 + /- 0.39 ) . For Gradia , Sof-Lex provided a significantly smoother surface ( Ra=0.47 + /- 0.09 ) and Astropol provided a significantly rougher surface ( Ra=1.39 + /- 0.19 ) than Pogo/Enhance ( Ra=1.11 + /- 0.20 ) and Optidisc ( Ra=1.15 + /- 0.18 ) . There was no significant difference in roughness between composites for individual polishing systems ( p=0.3991 ) . CONCLUSION Filtek specimens were smoother than Gradia specimens after baseline roughening . Sof-Lex provided the smoothest final surface when used with either composite . Astropol provided a rough surface for Gradia specimens
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 .