Polishability of Bulk-fill Resin Composites Using Different Polishing Systems

Method: Two bulk-fill composites (Tetric EvoCeram, Ivoclar-Vivadent, X-tra-fil, Voco), and two hybrid composite (Filtek-Supreme, 3M, Ultra-TPH-Spectrum, Dentsply) were used. Specimens were prepared using circular mold (5 mm diameter x 1 mm thick) pressed between 2 glass slides lined with Mylar-strips and light-polymerized for 10 seconds using LED-light Demi (Kerr Corporation). Groups of twelve specimens were prepared form each composite according to manufactures’ instructions. Each group was subdivided into four equal subgroups according to the polishing system used: G1: unpolished, G2: polished with Enhance one-step Finishing and Polishing system (Dentsplay/DE-Trey), G3: Jiffy, three-step system, silicon impregnated rubber (Ultradent) and G4: Sof-Lex silicon-impregnated discs four-step system (3M/ESPE). Specimens were polished according to manufacturers’ recommendations by the same operator then stored 24 hours in distilled water at 37 ºC. Surface roughness was determined using a profilometer.Three tracings at different locations on each specimen were made. Mean Ra values were calculated and data analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey’s test at p<.05.

Result: For G1 mean Ra values were 0.03, 0.02, 0.03, 0.01 for Tetric-Evoceram, Filtek-Supreme, X-tra-fil and Ultra-TPH-Spectrum, respectively. Mean Ra values varied among experimental groups with Tetric-evoceram having lowest value (0.04) with Jiffy, while X-tra-Fil had highest value (0.21) with Sof-Lex. Filtek-Supreme had smoothest surface finish with Sof-Lex (0.06) while TPH-Spectrum had it with Jiffy (0.08). ANOVA revealed significant differences in mean values among groups (p<0.001).

Conclusion:Polishability of 2 bulk-fil composites was dependent upon polishing system used. Tetric-evoceram had generally smoother surface finish with the 3 polishing systems as compared to X-tra-fil.