Abstract:Background: Finishing and polishing of composite resin restorations can be considered two different procedures or two steps of a single procedure. During the finishing procedure, contours are corrected while margins and irregularities are smoothened. The polishing procedures result in the production of a smooth and lustrous finish. Consensus regarding the correct timing for initiating the steps of finishing and polishing after the curing of the composite resins is divided. Some authors support immediate finishing and polishing while other authors support delaying the finishing and polishing procedures. Aim: The aim of this study is to evaluate the surface roughness and microhardness of composite resin restoration subjected to finishing and three different polishing systems immediately and after 24 h. Materials and method: Eighty composite resin samples were prepared. A Teflon mold was made which was customized for this study having dimensions of 10-mm diameter and 2-mm depth. For the first group of specimens, Group I (n = 20) the composite resin surface was covered with Mylar Strips which acted as control. The other specimens (n = 60) were prepared without the use of a Mylar strip, followed by curing. For all the samples, curing was done with a light-emitting diode for 40 s each. Eighty light-cured samples were divided equally into 4 groups, each group containing 20 samples (n = 20). Out of the 20 samples, in the second, third, and fourth groups, (Kenda C. G. I., Shofu Super-snap X-Treme, and Eve Diacomp Plus Twist) 10 samples were finished and polished immediately after curing and the other 10 samples were finished and polished after 24 h of curing. The samples in Groups II, III, and IV were subjected to finishing by a 12-fluted tungsten carbide bur and were polished according to the respective manufacturer's instructions. The samples were then subjected to quantitative analysis of surface roughness by a noncontact three-dimensional optical profilometer (Bruker GT-Q; Ettlingen, Germany) and qualitative analysis of surface roughness by a scanning electron microscope (Zeiss EVO 18 Special Edition; Carl-Zeiss-Strasse; Oberkochen Germany) at ×10,000 magnification. The samples were also subjected to Vickers microhardness measurement using a microhardness tester (Leica VMHT 001; Walter UHL GmbH, Germany) under 100 g load over 10 s. Conclusion: A. For surface roughness: The samples cured under Mylar strips gave the least surface roughness values (0.25 ± 0.032). Immediate finishing and polishing procedures led to statistically less surface roughness than when finishing and polishing procedures were performed after a delay of 24 h for all polishing systems used B. For microhardness: The samples cured under Mylar strips gave the least microhardness values (57.1 ± 2.03). Delayed finishing and polishing increased microhardness values in all finishing and polishing systems used. Different polishing systems did not have any significant effect on the microhardness values in immediate and delayed finishing and polishing groups.

Comparisons of effects of different polishing systems on PFM and composite resin surfaces

Effect of polishing on surface roughness and surface-free energy of direct tooth-colored restorative materials

Effects of Three Finishing and Polishing Procedures on the Surface of Six Resin Composites

Effect of different polishing systems on the surface roughness of various bulk‐fill and nano‐filled resin‐based composites: An atomic force microscopy and scanning electron microscopy study

The effect of contemporary finishing and polishing systems on the surface roughness of bulk fill resin composite and nanocomposites

Surface roughness of nanofill and nanohybrid composite resin and ormocer-based tooth-colored restorative materials after several finishing and polishing procedures

A comparative study of polishing systems on optical properties and surface roughness of additively manufactured and conventional resin based composites

Comparing the effect of two polishing systems on surface roughness of feldspathic, lithium disilicate, and translucent zirconia ceramics after orthodontic bracket debonding: An in vitro study

Effect of two different polishing systems on fluoride release, surface roughness and bacterial adhesion of newly developed restorative materials

Comparative study on the effects of different polishing methods on tooth surface microstructure and roughness following initial periodontal treatment

The Effect of Different Finishing and Polishing Systems on Surface Properties of New Flowable Bulk-fill Resin Composite

Effects of Filler Components on Surface Roughness of Composite Resin Materials after Polishing

Effect of finishing/polishing techniques and time on surface roughness of esthetic restorative materials

Surface roughness and microhardness evaluation of composite resin restorations subjected to three different polishing systems immediately and after 24 h: An in vitro study

The Effect of Polishing Techniques on Surface Roughness of Two Different Denture Base Materials

Effects of polishing press-on force on surface roughness and gloss of CAD-CAM composites

Surface Roughness and Gloss of Polished Nanofilled and Nanohybrid Resin Composites

Comparison of Various Surface Treatment Procedures on the Roughness and Susceptibility to Staining of Provisional Prosthodontic Materials

In vitro 2D and 3D roughness and spectrophotometric and gloss analyses of ceramic materials after polishing with different prophylactic pastes

[Surface Roughness, Gloss and Sequential Polishing Times of Various Chairside Computer Aided Design/manufacturing Restorative Materials].

Effect of Different Polishing Systems on Surface Roughness of IPS Empress Ceramic Materials