Abstract
Objective: The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the effect of three finishing/polishing systems on the surface roughness (Ra) of conventional and Bulk-fill composite resins. Materials and methods: The Ra values of three different brands of Bulk-fill composites (Filtek Bulk-fill (R), 3M ESPE; SonicFill Bulk-fill (R), Kerr; SDR Bulk-fill (R), Dentsply) were tested and compared with the Ra of a conventional composite (Filtek XT Z350 (R), 3M ESPE). A total of 30 discs (10 mm x 2 mm) were fabricated from four test materials and divided into three groups ( n = 10/group) depending on the three finishing/polishing systems used (Astropol (R), Ivoclar Vivadent; PoGo (R), Dentsply; Sof-LexTM (R), 3M ESPE). The Ra of each specimen was recorded with an optical profilometer (Contour-GT-X (R), USA). ANOVA and Tukey's tests were used for statistical analysis. Results: Statistically significant differences (P < 0.05) were observed between the Ra values of all composite materials tested with three finishing/polishing systems. Among composite materials, only Group-III showed a significant difference (P = 0.003) in Ra obtained using all three finishing/polishing systems. SDR Bulk-fill (R) and Filtek XT Z350 (R) showed the highest (0.810 +/- 0.373 mu m) and lowest (0.365 +/- 0.119 mu m) Ra values, respectively. Individually, the highest Ra was recorded for SDR Bulk-fill (R) when it was finished/polished with the Astropol (R) system. SonicFill Bulk-fill (R) and SDR Bulk-fill (R) composites exhibited the lowest Ra values when they were finished with the PoGo (R) system. Conclusion: Finishing and polishing techniques greatly affect the surface roughness of different Bulk-fill composites because variations in the surface roughness were observed for all tested composite materials. Filtek XT Z350 (R) exhibited the lowest surface roughness, while SDR Bulk-fill (R) exhibited the highest surface roughness among the tested composite materials.