Objectives: This study examined gloss and roughness of composites polished with one of three different rotating polishing systems or a brush-on liquid polish. Methods: The polishing systems evaluated were iPol (IP, Heraeus Kulzer), Sof-Lex (SL, 3MEspe) and an experimental polishing system (EP, Heraeus Kulzer). The tested liquid polish was HK Sealer (HKS, Heraeus Kulzer). 32 flat specimen of the composites Venus (VE, Heraeus Kulzer), Tetric Evo Ceram (TEC, Ivoclar Vivadent) and an experimental composite (EC, Heraeus Kulzer) were prepared. 8 specimen of each composite were polished with one of the three rotating polishing systems or the liquid polish was brushed-on. Gloss is defined as percentage of the totally reflected light from a perfect mirror (=100%). Reflection (%) and average surface roughness Ra (µm) were measured with a surface laser scanner (UBM). Statistical analysis by ANOVA. Results: The best gloss result was achieved with EC/EP (7,5%). The best roughness result was measured with VE/HKS, TEC/HKS and VE/SL (0,06µm). Roughness achieved with SL and HKS was significantly lower (p£0,05). The gloss results of SL were significantly lower than all others. No significant differences in roughness were found between the composites within the HKS-group.
| Roughness (µm) |
|
|
|
|
|
| IP | EP | SL | HKS |
| VE | 0,17 | 0,16 | 0,06 | 0,06 |
| EC | 0,37 | 0,20 | 0,07 | 0,07 |
| TEC | 0,12 | 0,12 | 0,10 | 0,06 |
| Gloss (Reflection in %) |
|
|
| |
|
| IP | EP | SL | HKS |
| VE | 7,2 | 7,3 | 4,5 | 6,2 |
| EC | 6,6 | 7,5 | 4,2 | 6,0 |
| TEC | 6,8 | 7,0 | 4,9 | 6,8 |
Conclusions: There was no significant correlation between gloss and roughness. The roughness results found with HKS were independent from the used composite material. Gloss and roughness stability under loading and oral conditions as well as the clinical relevance of the assessed results e.g. for increased plaque accumulation behavior must be evaluated in further studies.