10th ConsEuro, 22 - 24 April 2021, pp.92
Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of prophylactic polishing paste and airpolishing
on the surface roughness of different resin composites.
Materials and Methods: In this study, three different resin composites were used: nanohybrid
(Charisma Topaz, Kulzer GmbH), low-viscosity bulk-fill (Metafil Bulk Fill, Sun Medical) and highviscosity
bulk-fill (Filtek Bulk Fill, 3M ESPE) resin composites (n=40). Totally 120 disc-shaped
specimens (diameter: 4mm, thickness: 2 mm) were fabricated using Teflon molds. All specimens
were polymerized with LED light-curing device (1000 mW/cm2) according to the manufacturers’
instructions. All specimens were polished with a series of aluminum oxide polishing discs (OptiDisc,
Kerr) and subdivided into four groups according to the different prophylactic polishing protocols
(n=10): 1) no prophylactic polishing protocol (control), 2) polishing paste, 3) air-polishing, 4) airpolishing+
polishing paste. Then, the surface roughness (Ra,mm) were measured at 4 different
points of the top surfaces by a contact profilometry (Marsurf M 300 C). Data were statistically
analyzed with two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni tests (p<0.05).
Results: Regarding the polishing protocols, for Metafil Bulk Fill and Charisma Topaz, control
(0,550±0,170), (0,365±0,090) and polishing paste (0,615±0,083), (0,424±0,065) groups showed
significantly lower surface roughness than air-polishing (0,748±0,181), (0,603±0,069) and airpolishing
+ polishing paste (0,899±0,110), (0,577±0,087) groups, respectively. However, no
significant differences were observed between control and polishing paste groups. For Filtek
Bulk Fill, air-polishing group (0,657±0,059) showed significantly higher surface roughness
than polishing paste group (0,531±0,093). Regarding the resin composites, for control group,
Charisma Topaz (0,365±0,090) showed significantly lower surface roughness than Metafil Bulk
Fill (0,550±0,170) and Filtek Bulk Fill (0,632±0,109). For air-polishing and polishing paste groups,
Metafil Bulk Fill showed significantly higher surface roughness than Charisma Topaz. For airpolishing
+ polishing paste groups, Metafill Bulk Fill (0,899±0,110) showed significantly higher
surface roughness than Charisma Topaz (0,577±0,087) and Filtek Bulk Fill (0,596±0,089).
Conclusion: Air-polishing caused higher surface roughness than polishing paste for all tested
composites. Besides, low-viscosity bulk-fill showed higher surface roughness than nanohybrid
composite for all polishing protocols.