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 effect of different polishing systems on surface roughness and gloss of various resin composites.
PURPOSE The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the surface finish and gloss of five direct resin composites polished with six polishing systems . MATERIAL S AND METHODS One hundred and fifty disk-shaped composite specimens ( D=10.0 mm , 2-mm-thick , N=30 per material ) were made . One side of each specimen was finished with a 16-fluted carbide finishing bur and then polished . Five specimens of each resin composite were r and omly assigned to one of the six polishing systems . The surface roughness and gloss were measured with a surface profilometer and a glossmeter . The results were analyzed by two-way analysis of variance and Tukey 's t-test ( p < or= 0.05 ) . RESULTS There was no significant interaction between the composite and the polishing systems for surface roughness ( p=0.059 ) . The order of surface roughness ranked according to composite was : Durafill < Esthet-X < Supreme < Z250 < Z100 ; and the ranking for the polishing system was : Pogo < Sof-Lex < Diacomp/Enamelize < Diacomp < ComposiPro brush < Jiffy . There was interaction of gloss values between the composites and the polishing systems ( p < 0.001 ) . The highest gloss value was recorded for Supreme + Pogo ; the lowest was recorded for Z100 + Jiffy . Pogo showed the highest gloss values for all composites . CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE The nanofill ( Supreme ) and minifill ( Esthet-X ) composites presented a surface roughness comparable to a microfill ( Durafill ) , independent of the polishing system used , and a gloss comparable to a microfill , when polished with a one-step system ( Pogo ) . As compared with the multiple-step systems , the smoothest surfaces and the highest gloss values were achieved using the one-step system ( Pogo ) for all the evaluated 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 .