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 .
The influence of one-step polishing systems on the surface roughness and microhardness of nanocomposites.
OBJECTIVES This in vitro study evaluated the surface roughness and microhardness of nanocomposites that contain nanoparticles and a microhybrid composite finished and polished with two different one-step polishing systems and a conventional multi-step polishing system . METHODS AND MATERIAL S The material s evaluated were Filtek Supreme XT , Gr and io , Ceram X , Aelite Aesthetic Enamel , Tetric EvoCeram and Filtek Z250 .  A total of 240 specimens ( 10-mm in diameter , 2 mm thick ) were fabricated for both tests ( n=120 each test ) in a plexiglass mold covered with a Mylar strip . After polymerization , five specimens per group received no polishing treatment and served as the control for both tests . For each composite group ( n=15 ) , the specimens were r and omly divided into three polishing systems : PoGo , OptraPol and Sof-Lex . All polishing systems were applied according to the manufacturers ' instructions after being ground wet with 1200 grid silicon carbide paper . The surface roughness values were determined using a profilometer . The microhardness measurements were performed using a digital microhardness tester ( load 500 g ; dwell time 15 seconds ) . The data were analyzed using the one-way ANOVA test at a significance level of 0.05 for both tests . Multiple comparison was performed with the Duncan Multiple Range test . RESULTS The smoothest surfaces were achieved under Mylar strips in all composite groups ( p<0.05 ) . There were no statistically significant differences between polishing systems in the Filtek Supreme XT , Ceram X , Aelite Aesthetic Enamel and Gr and io groups for surface roughness ( p>0.05 ) . In the Tetric EvoCeram group , Sof-Lex exhibited the highest roughness values . No statistically significant differences were evaluated between polishing systems ( p>0.05 ) ; whereas , the surfaces under Mylar Strip showed statistically significant lower values than the polished surfaces in terms of microhardness ( p<0.05 ) . CONCLUSION One-step polishing systems may be successfully used for polishing nanocomposites
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 .