Objectives: The objective of this in vitro study was to compare, with a threshold value of 200 nm, the surface roughness obtained when using 12 different polishing systems on four different composite resins (microfill, nanofill, and two nanohybrids).
Methods and materials: A total of 384 convex specimens were made using Durafill VS, Filtek Supreme Ultra, Grandio SO, and Venus Pearl. After sandblasting and finishing with a medium-grit finishing disc, initial surface roughness was measured using a surface roughness tester. Specimens were polished using 12 different polishing systems: Astropol, HiLuster Plus, D♦Fine, Diacomp, ET Illustra, Sof-Lex Wheels, Sof-Lex XT discs, Super-Snap, Enhance/Pogo, Optrapol, OneGloss and ComposiPro Brush (n=8). The final surface roughness was measured, and data were analyzed using two-way analysis of variance. Pairwise comparisons were made using protected Fisher least significant difference.
Results: There were statistical differences in the final surface roughness between polishing systems and between composite resins (p<0.05). The highest surface roughness was observed for all composite resins polished with OneGloss and ComposiPro Brush. Enhance/Pogo and Sof-Lex Wheels produced a mean surface roughness greater than the 200-nm threshold on Filtek Supreme Ultra, Grandio SO, and Venus Pearl. Data showed that there was an interaction between the composite resins and the polishing systems.
Conclusions: A single polishing system does not perform equally with all composite resins. Except for Optrapol, multi-step polishing systems performed generally better than one-step systems. Excluding Enhance/Pogo, diamond-impregnated polishers led to lower surface roughness. Durafill VS, a microfill composite resin, may be polished more predictably with different polishers.