Methods: 21 specimens (8x2mm) were made for each of the tested composites – indirect, ormocer, microhybrid and packable (In:Joy,Ceram X Mono, Spectrum, SureFil/Dentsply) and randomly divided into three groups (n=7). One of them surved as control (polymerization under Mylar strip) and the other two were finished (fine and extra fine diamond burs) and polished with Enhance® Composite Finishing & Polishing System/ Dentsply and Sof-Lex™ Finishing and Polishing System/3M ESPE, respectively. All samples were washed (15s), stored (37°C, 24h), tested for surface roughness {profilometer and SEM-analysis}, immerced in 2% methylene blue for staining analysis (spectrophotometer) and statistically analyzed (ANOVA, Tukey's, p<0.05).
Results:
The indirect composite presented the smoothest surface and the least dye uptake (p<0.05) in the control groups. Significant differences (p<0.001) were found for the surface roughness between control groups and Enhance/Soflex-groups. The last two groups did not differ statistically from each other (p>0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in Ra among the composites polished with Enhance (p>0.05). In the Soflex-group statistically significant difference was found only between Ceram X and In:Joy. No correlation was found between staining susceptibility and surface roughness (p=0,767).
Conclusions:
After finishing and polishing the indirect composite exhibited surface roughness similar to that of direct composites. The two polishing systems are suitable for polishing the tested composites. The staining susceptibility depends on the composition of the material and changes with surface treatment. Probably there are other mechanisms than surface roughness which affect the staining.