Review: finishing and polishing procedures of (resin-modified) glass ionomers and compomers in paediatric dentistry.
Background: A smooth surface has a beneficial effect on the aesthetic quality and longevity of a dental restoration, as well as on its biocompatibility with the oral tissues. In this review studies on glass-ionomer cements (GIC), resin-modified glass-ionomer cements (RM-GIC) and compomers or polyacid-modified resin composites (PAM-C) were assessed as these are currently used in paediatric dentistry. Method: Medline database (U.S.A. National Library of Medicine) was searched using WinSpirs and PubMed. This search used a keyword filter including dental materials, polishing procedures, and instrumentation including influencing factors. Findings: Although the literature shows different commercially available tools it seems that the ideal polishing instrumentation in paediatric dentistry for GIC and compomers is not yet on the market. Furthermore, the constant development of dental materials and polishing products impose a need for continuing scientific research.
Key words: compomers, glass ionomer cements, finishing, dental
Proper finishing and polishing of dental restorative materials are critical clinical procedures and an essential requisite for a successful restoration [Health et al., 1993; Yap et al., 1998; Wilder et al., 2000]. Finishing refers to the gross contouring or reducing of the restoration in order to obtain the desired anatomy. Polishing refers to the reduction of the roughness and scratches created by the finishing instruments. But, these two procedures are inter-dependent and cannot be clearly differentiated from each other [Yap et al., 2002].
It is generally accepted that a smooth surface has a beneficial effect on the aesthetic quality and longevity of the restoration, as well as on its biocompatibility with the oral tissues. Residual surface roughness associated with improper finishing and polishing can result in imperfections of dental restorations and, therefore, clinical difficulties for both the dentist and the patient [Jefferies, 1998]. Such problems include excessive plaque accumulation [Berastegui et al., 1992; Quirynen and Bollen, 1995] that may cause gingival inflammation and secondary caries [Yap et al., 1998], superficial staining [Yap et al., 1998], patient discomfort, and loss of the aesthetic quality of the restored teeth [Kaplan et al., 1996; Bouvier at al., 1997; Jefferies, 1998; Wilder at al., 2000].
The aim of this paper is to review and discuss the literature of the last decade dealing with the effectiveness of several methods used for finishing and polishing adhesive restorative materials used in paediatric dentistry.
Materials and methods
Studies on polishing of dental materials, published since 1995, were compiled through a systematic literature search on Medline databases (U.S. National Library of Medicine); the Medline database was searched
using WinSpirs and PubMed. This search used a keyword filter including dental materials, polishing procedures, and instrumentation.
Adequate information on materials and methodology was considered as essential for articles to be included in the review. Only studies on glass-ionomer cements (GIC), resin-modified glass-ionomer cements (RM-GIC).and compomers or polyacid-modified resin composites (PAM-C) were used. All the other studies were excluded. Studies in the form of abstracts were also excluded.
Review of the literature.
Finishing and polishing instruments used in dental practice. A wide variety of finishing and polishing instruments are available to the clinician. Aluminium oxide-coated abrasive discs, diamond burs (25-30 micron), multifluted carbide burs (8-, 12-, 16- and 30-fluted), impregnated rubber cups/points and discs, diamond-coated abrasive strips and polishing pastes are the most commonly used. According to Jefferies , these instruments can be broadly classified into four groups:
* coated abrasives, e.g. aluminium oxide abrasive discs;
* cutting devices, e.g. carbide burs;
* bonded abrasives (elastic, e.g. rubber cups; rigid, e.g. white stones);
* loose abrasives, e.g. polishing pastes.
Besides, there are nowadays several commercial polishing systems ("kits") available, consisting of more than one instrument which should be used in a specific sequence (according to manufacturers) for achieving an optimum result.
Methods used to assess the effectiveness of finishing and polishing instruments. In the literature, the most common methods used to assess the effectiveness of finishing and polishing instruments include:
* visual evaluation (aided, with an optical microscope; unaided, with the naked eye) of the texture of polished surfaces,
* scanning electron microscopy (SEM) for a detailed qualitative examination of surface topography and characteristics, and
* profilometric analysis (mechanical or optical) in order to measure quantitatively specific values of the surface roughness of a restorative material after finishing and polishing procedures.
Each one of the above-mentioned methods has advantages and disadvantages. Relying on one single method to evaluate the surface texture of a polished material and thus to assess the effectiveness of finishing and polishing instruments may lead to misleading results and conclusions. Therefore, the combination of more than one method has been advocated in order to confirm the results obtained for the efficacy of polishing procedures [Jeffries, 1998].
Besides the surface texture (roughness and topography), evaluation of additional parameters has also been used for the assessment of the effectiveness of polishing instruments. These parameters include:
* the colour change using a dental colour meter [Chung , 1994; Hotta et al., 1995],
* the surface microhardness using a microhardness tester [Hotta et al., 1995; Yap et al., 1998],
* the toothbrush wear (a Toothbrush Abrasion Apparatus is used and then the toothbrush abrasion on the surface of the material is evaluated) [Hotta et al., 1995; Neme et al., 2002],
* the microleakage resistance (marginal sealing ability) as indicated by the depth of dye penetration around the enamel and/or dentine margins of the restoration [Lim et al., 1999; Yap et al., 2002; Yap et al., 2002b].
Finishing and polishing methods for GIC cements. Two studies have dealt with the finishing and polishing of GIC cements during the last decade (Table 1). These studies show that the smoothest surface of GIC specimens is achieved using a sequential series of aluminium oxide abrasive discs [Hotta et al., 1995; Paulillo et al., 1997]. Firla  recommended the use of diamonds with "passive" guiding tips under water spray (speed: 40.000 rpm) for the contouring of Class V GIC restorations. The advantage of these "tissue-protective" instruments is that they allow a less-traumatic working procedure at the gingival margins of the restoration. Carbide burs and Arkansas stones were found less effective as polishing instruments for GIC [Hodrum et al., 1997; Hoelscher et al., 1998].
Several commercial polishing systems like the Enhance polishing system (Caulk/Dentsply), the Composite Finishing system (Kerr), the Two Striper MFS/MPS diamond polishing system (ESPE/Premier) and the Two Striper MPS diamond polishing system (ESPE/Premier) also gave unsatisfactory results as compared to discs [Paulillo et al., 1997; Hoelscher et al., 1998]. However, Hoelscher et al.  concluded that the abrasive impregnated discs of Enhance polishing system were as effective as Sof-Lex discs on specimens of the GIC Ketac-Fil (ESPE).
Finishing and polishing methods for resin-modified glass-ionomer cements and polyacid-modified resin composites. Some recent studies have investigated the polishing of RMGIC and PAM-C (Tables 2, 3, and 4). However, these studies merely compare the polishing results of these two "new" restorative materials with those of the traditional aesthetic restorative materials (i.e., GIC cements and composites).
It seems that polishing with aluminium oxide discs produces the smoothest surface for RM-GIC and PAM-C [St. Germain and Meiers, 1996; Tate and Powers, 1996; Bouvier et al., 1997; Yap et al., 2002b]. Diamonds (especially extra fine diamonds) appear at least as effective for polishing of these dental materials [St. Germain and Meiers, 1996]. Carbide burs are not suitable as polishing instruments [Yap et al., 2002] while rubber abrasives and polishing pastes are detrimental to the resin matrix of these materials [Germain and Meiers, 1996].
Commercial polishing systems give rather doubtful results [Bouvier et al., 1997; Hodrum and Fernandez, 1997, St.Germain and Meiers, 1996; Tate and Powers, 1996]. Only two studies found the Enhance polishing system and the Composite Points system to be as effective as aluminium oxide discs for polishing RM-GIC [Eide and Tveit, 1990; Hoelscher et al., 1998].
Comparative studies of diff e rent adhesive restorative materials. There are several reported which compare the "polishability" of the different categories of adhesive restorative materials (Table 3). It has been generally concluded that after use of the same polishing procedure the surface of GIC becomes rougher and less reflective than that of resin composites. The roughness obtained for RM-GIC and PAM-C lies between that of GIC and resin composites with PAM-C to be more comparable to composites than to RM-GIC [Chung, 1994; Tate and Powers, 1996; Hodrum and Fernandez, 1997; Yap and Mok, 2002]. It seems that differences in formulation are responsible for this ranking of the tooth-coloured materials [Yap and Mok, 2002]. However, St. Germain and Meiers  concluded that there were no significant diff e rences between three RM-GIC (Vitremer, 3M; Photac Fil, ESPE; Fuji II LC) and a specific PAM-C (Variglass, Caulk/Dentsply) when the same polishing sequences were used. Hoelscher et al.  also found no significant differences among a GIC (Ketac-Fil), a RM-GIC (Fuji II LC), and two composites (Silux, 3M; Prisma TPH, Caulk/Dentsply).
The impact of polishing on microleakage. The influence of the polishing procedure on the microleakage of adhesive restorations has also been the subject of some studies. Two concluded that wet polishing of GIC at ultra-high speed can increase microleakage at the dentine margins. Polishing of RM-GIC under water-cooling results in a lower microleakage at the enamel margins of the restoration. The microleakage of the resin composite Z100 (3M/ ESPE) and the PAM-C Dyract (De Trey/Dentsply) was not significantly affected by the polishing method used, at both enamel and dentine margins [Yap et al. 2002]. On the other hand, Wilder et al.  found that the microleakage of two RM-GIC (Vitremer and Fuji II LC) and one GIC (Fuji II, GC Corp.) was not significantly affected by dry or wet polishing with Sof-Lex discs.
With respect to the effect of polishing time (moment) on the marginal seal of PAM-C and RM-GIC restorations, Dyract could be finished immediately at dentine and enamel margins, while Fuji II LC should be finished immediately at dentine but delayed at enamel margins. [Lim et al., 1999].
Although adhesive restorative materials cured against a matrix are not devoid of surface imperfections [Stoddard and Johnson, 1991], they seem to have the smoothest surface possible. However, despite careful placement and use of a matrix, removal of excess material and re-contouring of restorations are often necessary in clinical practice [Health et al., 1993]. Thus, polishing of restorations is then required which will, in fact, impair the smoothness obtained with the matrix. Unfortunately, polishing of tooth-coloured restorations is further complicated by the heterogeneous nature of these materials, i.e. hard filler particles embedded in a relatively soft matrix [Chung, 1994; Hodrum and Fernandez, 1997, Geiger et al., 1999].
Polishing procedures. The polishing procedures reported in the literature--even when the same instruments are involved--vary considerably thus making comparisons between different methods and studies difficult. It is generally agreed that resin composites are the adhesive materials showing the smoothest surface after polishing [Tate and Powers, 1996; Bouvier et al, 1997; Hoelscher et al., 1998]. This characteristic is one of their great advantages compared with the other tooth-coloured materials and it can partially explain why resin composites are currently the most used and the most popular restorative material in aesthetic dentistry.
The significance of the initial contouring and finishing procedures has been evaluated, particularly on specimens of resin composites, but there is disagreement as to which instrument is the most effective. The literature suggests that there would not be a universal method for final polishing of adhesive restorative materials. It is obvious from many studies that it is important to select a polishing system that works efficiently for the type of material used [Stoddard and Johnson, 1991; Yap et al., 1997; Wilder et al., 2000; Yap et al., 2002b Reis et al., 2003]. However, it seems that the best results are generally achieved when polishing is accomplished with aluminium oxide discs (e.g. Sof-Lex discs and Super Snap discs) at low speed under dry conditions. The flexible backing material of the discs in which the abrasive is embedded may be advantageous for the surface morphology of adhesive dental materials [Hondrum and Fernandez, 1997]. The planar motion of these instruments may also contribute to a smoother surface [Fruits et al., 1996].
There are, however, some other considerations in selecting a disc as polishing instrument. It is likely that a discolouration of the surface of the material will result from a contact with the head of the mandrel when e.g. Sof-Lex or Moore (E.C. Moore Co) discs are used. This is not the case when, for example, the Super Snap discs are selected, because the head of the mandrel is then totally covered by the disc. Another consideration is the limited standardisation among discs of different manufacturers, especially the classification such as coarse, medium, fine, etc. Pratten and Johnson  demonstrated in vitro that Sof-Lex coarse disc created surface roughness values twice those of the Super Snap coarse disc on specimens of the same composite resin and that the values for the Sof-Lex medium disc were nearly equal to those of the Super Snap coarse disc. Similar results were found by Herrgott et al.  for Sof-Lex, Flexidisk (Cosmedent Inc.) and Super Snap discs. Hence, the combined use of discs from different manufacturers on the same adhesive restorative material should be avoided.
Influencing factors: Dry versus wet polishing. Polishing of GIC and RM-GIC under dry conditions has been found to produce a smoother surface and a more acceptable topography than wet polishing with the same instruments. However, wet polishing of conventional GIC is still recommended in order to avoid desiccation of these materials [Wilder et al., 2000]. For composite resins, it has been found that dry polishing with Sof-Lex discs results in superior or equal smoothness to wet polishing [Dodge et al., 1991].
Influencing factors: The use of a gel as an active polishing agent. The use of petroleum jelly as a lubricant during the polishing of GIC materials has been advocated in the past. In this respect, Naguib and Carlson  evaluated the polishing of the GIC Ketac-Fil, the Cermet cement Chelon Silver and the RM-GIC Fuji II LC with discs lubricated with either water or petroleum jelly. SEM evaluation showed no changes in surface morphology of these materials that would substantiate the use of petroleum jelly as a lubricant during polishing instead of water. On the other hand, Liberman and Geiger  found that polishing of GIC and RM-GIC materials with Sof-Lex discs and poly(acrylic acid) gel (Polyaclylic Dentin conditioner, Ultradent product Inc.), as polishing agent under dry conditions, had an advantageous effect on the surface roughness and in addition no evidence of surface softening was observed. A physicochemical interaction between this gel and the surface elements, e.g. glass particles and matrix, is taking place.
Influencing factors: Glazing after the polishing procedure. Tate and Powers  showed that the application of glaze after polishing of two RM-GIC produced surfaces of high smoothness. Hotta et al.  found that glazing GIC with the light-activated coating resin 'Bell feel Brightener' (Kanebo Ltd.) produced a surface with higher gloss, when compared with polishing. However, KHN values decreased according to the order: polished surface with discs > glazed surface > untouched surface under matrix. Moreover, this glazing agent resulted in colour changes of the surface of some of the specimens tested. These disadvantages should, therefore, be considered before application of glaze is recommended in clinical practice instead of polishing.
Finally, Roeder et al.  evaluated the application of an unfilled resin (Protect-It Composite Surface Sealant, Generic/ Pentron) on surfaces of hybrid and packable composites after polishing with several methods. They found that this agent could not adequately compensate for surface irregularities produced by finishing and polishing instruments.
Influencing factors: Temperature. Briseno et al.  measured the rise in pulp temperature during in vitro finishing and polishing with Super Snap discs of resin composite restorations placed in extracted human maxillary anterior teeth. These authors concluded that a maximal speed of 4,000 rpm should be applied when polishing is carried out with discs without continuous water-cooling. However, when water-cooling is used, discs could safely be used at a speed of 10,000 rpm with continuous pressure. If similar reactions are found in RM-GIC then PAM-C should be studied further.
Influencing factors: Time elapsed. The impact of the time elapsed between placement of the material and finishing procedures on the properties of adhesive restorations has also been studied. It seems that the moment of polishing is not crucial for the surface characteristics of resin composites [Yap et al., 1998] while it is quite important for the other tooth-coloured dental materials. For GIC, it has been generally recommended to delay polishing until the material has completely set. In fact, these restorative materials are prone to desiccation and consequently they require protection during their setting phase in order to increase the life span of the restoration [Pearson, 1991]. Delayed polishing of RM-GIC and PAM-C also resulted in a smoother surface with an at least comparable hardness compared to that obtained with immediate finishing and polishing procedures [Yap et al., 1998, Yap et al,. 2002].
Environmental factors. Jefferies , based on his own clinical experience, reported that an enamel-like appearance of hybrid composite resin restorations could only last from 12 to 36 months, depending on the quality of initial polishing, the patient's oral hygiene and diet as well as on other factors. Therefore, he suggested that these restorations require regular follow-up and repolishing. In this respect, Neme et al.  found, in a more recent study, that RM-GIC, PAM-C, and composite resins show a significant increase in roughness following simulated tooth brushing. The importance of repolishing of tooth-coloured materials after application of prophylaxis paste during recall visits has also been emphasised [Jeffries, 1998; Neme et al., 2002].
Parameters such as the magnitude and time of applied pressure during polishing may also affect the results obtained. However, further research is required and thorough studies should be performed before any firm conclusions can be drawn.
It must also be noted that repeated use of polishing instruments results in wear especially with the mandrels of discs. This wear is even worse in some of the available commercial polishing kits where plastic mandrels are used. Instrument damage can also result from repeated autoclaving, dry-heat applications or exposure to caustic cold sterilisation and surface disinfectants. Liston et al.  reported two cases of soft tissue trauma caused by displaced polishing discs following routine restorative and polishing procedures. These cases emphasise the importance of continuous maintenance/replacement of instruments and in addition the need of proper isolation and protection of the surrounding soft tissues when carrying out any polishing procedure.
One of the major problems or disadvantages of the study of the properties, and thus of the polishing procedures, of dental restorative materials is the short life span of many products [Randall and Wilson, 1999]. Frequently, by the time a study is completed, newer, different products have replaced the materials and/or the polishers evaluated [Stoddard and Johnston, 1991]. In particular, some dental materials used in the above-mentioned studies may no longer be available on the market and, in these cases, the scientific significance and thus the validity of these studies are undoubtedly diminished.
Finally, it must also be pointed out that the evaluation and hence the comparison of polishing instruments are achieved mostly in vitro. An important, though difficult question is whether the results of in vitro studies closely represent the clinical situation in vivo. In the oral cavity, it might be expected that after exposure to oral fluid and oral hygiene procedures over a long period of time, the surface characteristics and the surface texture of adhesive restorative materials might change. In this respect, the effect of polishing has not been studied yet.
Dentists strive to improve methods to achieve the smoothest surface possible for all the adhesive restorative materials. However, it seems that the ideal polishing instrumentation in paediatric dentistry for GIC and compomers is not yet on the market. Furthermore, the constant development of dental materials and polishing products impose a need for continuing scientific research. Most of the studies agree that aluminium oxide discs generally give the best results and that resin composites are the materials showing the smoothest surface after polishing. However, as in vivo evaluation and comparison of polishing procedures is not currently feasible, every conclusion seems to be relative and any statement or estimation over polishing agents should be made with caution. It is obvious that the profound knowledge of the properties of dental materials, the continuous information about new products and certainly the clinical experience are essential factors to the practitioner as to finally make a wise choice.
Berastegui E, Canalda C, Brau E, Miquel C. Surface roughness of finished composite resins. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68:742-9.
Bouvier D, Duprez JP, Lissac M. Comparative evaluation of polishing systems on the surface of three esthetic materials. J Oral Rehabil 1997;24:888-94.
Briseno B, Ernst CP, Willershausen-Zonnchen B. Rise in pulp temperature during finishing and polishing of resin composite restorations: An in vitro study. Quintessence Int 1995;26:361?5.
Chung KH. Effects of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface texture of resin composites. Dent Mater 1994;10:325-30.
Dodge WW, Dal RA, Cooley RL, Duke ES. Comparison of wet and dry finishing of resin composites with aluminum oxide discs. Dent Mater 1991;7:18-20.
Eide R, Tveit AB. Finishing and polishing glass-ionomer cements. Acta Odontol Scand 1990;48:409-13.
Firla MT. Simplified trimming and finishing of glass-polyalkenoate (ionomer) cement restorations. Quintessence Int 1991;22:207-10.
Fruits TJ, Miranda FJ, Coury TL. Effects of equivalent abrasive grit sizes utilizing differing polishing motions on selected restorative materials. Quintessence Int 1996;27:279-85.
Geiger S, Ravchanukayev M, Liberman R. Surface roughness evaluation of resin modified glass-ionomers polished utilizing poly(acrylic acid) gel. J Oral Rehabil 1999;26:704-9.
Heath JR, Jordan JH, Watts DC. The effect of time of trimming on the surface finish of anterior composite resins. J Oral Rehabil 1993;20:45-52.
Herrgott AML, Ziemiecki TL. An evaluation of different composite resin systems finished with various abrasives. Amer. Dent. Assoc.1989;729-32.
Hoelscher DC, Neme AM, Pink FE, Hughes PJ. The effect of three finishing systems on four esthetic restorative materials. Oper Dent 1998;23:36-42.
Hondrum SO, Fernandez RJr. Contouring, finishing, and polishing class 5 restorative materials. Oper Dent 1997;22:30-6.
Hotta M, Hirukawa H, Aono M. The effect of glaze on restorative glassionomer cements. J Oral Rehabil 1995;22:197-201.
Jefferies SR. The art and science of abrasive finishing and polishing in restorative dentistry. Dent Clin North Am 1998;42:613-27.
Kaplan BA, Goldstein GR, Vijayaraghavan TV, Nelson IK. The effect of three polishing systems on the surface roughness of four hybrid composites: a profilometric and scanning electron microscopy study. J Prosthet Dent 1996;76:34-8.
Liberman R, Geiger S. Surface texture evaluation of glass ionomer restorative materialspolished utilizing poly(acrylic acid) gel. J Oral Rehabil 1994;21:87-94.
Lim CC, Neo J, Yap A. The influence of finishing time on the marginal seal of a resin-modified glass-ionomer and polyacid-modified composite. J Oral Rehabil 1999;26:48-52.
Liston PN, Kumara R, Tong DC. Displaced polishing discs: two case reports. Br Dent J 2001;191:74-6.
Naguib EA, Carlson TJ. The effect of finishing techniques on marginal adaptation and surface morphology of three glass ionomer cements. J Indiana Dent Assoc 1992;71:20-2.
Neme AL, Frazier KB, Roeder LB, Debner TL. Effect of prophylactic polishing protocols on the surface roughness of esthetic restorative materials. Oper Dent 2002;27:50-8.
Paulillo LA, Coradazzi JL, Lovadino JR, Serra MC. Surface finishing of glass ionomer. Am J Dent 1997;10:137-40.
Pearson GJ. Finishing of glass-ionomer cements. Dent Update 1991;18:424-8.
Pratten DH, Johnson GH. An evaluation of finishing instruments for an anterior and a posterior composite. J Prosthet Dent 1988;60:154-8
Quirynen M, Bollen CML. The influence of surface roughness and surface-free energy on supra- and subgingival plaque formation in man. A review of the literature. J Clin Periodontol 1995;22:1-14.
Randall RC, Wilson NHF. Clinical testing of restorative materials: some historical landmarks. J Dent 1999;27:543-50.
Reis AF, Giannini M, Lovadino JR, Ambrosano GM. Effects of various finishing systems on the surface roughness and staining susceptibility of packable composite resins. Dent Mater 2003;19:12-8.
Roeder LB, Tata WH, Powers JM. Effect of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface roughness of packable composites. Oper Dent 2000;25:534-43.
St. Germain HAJr, Meiers JC. Surface roughness of light-activated glassionomer cement restorative materials after finishing. Oper Dent 1996;21:103-9.
Stoddard JW, Johnson GH. An evaluation of polishing agents for composite resins. J Prosthet Dent 1991;65:491-5.
Tate WH, Powers JM. Surface roughness of composites and hybrid ionomers. Oper Dent 1996;21:53-8.
Wilder ADJr, Swift EJJr, May KNJr, Thompson JY, McDougal RA. Effect of finishing technique on the microleakage and surface texture of resin-modified glass ionomer restorative materials. J Dent 2000;28:367-73
Yap AUJ, Lye KW, Sau CW. Surface characteristics of tooth-colored restoratives polished utilizing diff e rent polishing systems. Oper Dent 1997;22:260-5.
Yap AUJ, Mok BYY. Surface finish of a new hybrid aesthetic restorative material. Oper Dent 2002;27:161-6.
Yap AUJ, Ong SB, Yap WY, Tan WS, Yeo JC. Surface texture of resin-modified-glass ionomer cements: effects of finishing/polishing time. Oper Dent 2002a;27:462-7.
Yap AUJ, Sau CW, Lye KW. Effects of finishing/polishing time on surface characteristics of tooth-colourd restoratives. J Oral Rehabil 1998;25:456-61.
Yap AUJ, Tan WS, Yeo JC, Yap WY, Ong SB. Surface texture of resin-modified glass ionomer cements: effects of finishing/polishing systems. Oper Dent 2002b;27:381-6.
N. S. Koupis *, L.A.M. Marks *, R.M.H. Verbeeck **, L.C. Martens *.
* Dept. Paediatric Dentistry and Special Care, PaeCaMeD research;
** Dept. Dental Biomaterials Science, IBITECH, Ghent University, Belgium.
Postal address: Prof. L A.M. Marks. Dept. Paediatric Dentistry and Special Care Ghent University, De Pintelaan 185 P8, B- 9000 Gent - Belgium
Email: Email: Luc.firstname.lastname@example.org
Table 1 Recent studies (since 1995) on polishing of glass ionomer cements (GICs). Authors GIC Polishing Methods Hotta et al. (1995) Fuji II Super Snap Rainbow system Chemfil II "Bellfeel Brightener" as glaze agent Chelonfil Paulillo Chemfil II Diamond burs et al. (1997) "Sof-Lex discs polishing system" "Enhance polishing system" Authors GIC Findings Hotta et al. (1995) Fuji II --none of these GIC could be Chemfil II polished to a very smooth surface Chelonfil --glazing produced a surface with higher gloss compared to polishing Paulillo Chemfil II --Sof-Lex discs were more et al. (1997) effective than the other polishing methods --diamond burs were the least effective instruments Table 2 Recent studies (since 1995) on polishing of resin-modified glass ionomer cements (RM-GIC). Authors RM-GIC Studied Properties Yap et al. (2002a) Fuji II LC "Super Snap Rainbow system" Photac Fil Quick "One Gloss system" "CompoSite points system" Carbide burs Yap et al. (2002b) Fuji II LC Influence of immediate and Photac Fil Quick delayed (1 week after light polymerisation) polishing on surface roughness Authors RM-GIC Findings Yap et al. (2002a) Fuji II LC --Super Snap discs and Photac Fil Quick CompoSite Points system gave the best results --carbide burs and One Gloss system are nor recommended for polishing of these RM-GIC Yap et al. (2002b) Fuji II LC --polishing 1 week after Photac Fil Quick light polymerisation resulted in lower values in both vertical and horizontal axis Table 3 Recent comparative studies (since 1995) evaluating the influence of polishing methods on surface texture of dental adhesive restorative materials. Authors Material Polishing Methods St. Germain RM-GIC: Photac Fil Carbide burs/Sof-Lex discs and Meiers Fuji II LC Diamond burs (1996) Vitremer Carbide burs/"Enhance system" PAM-C: Variglass Carbide burs/Polytip rubbers Carbide burs Tate and RM-GIC: Fuji II LC "Sof-Lex discs polishing system" Powers (1996) Vitremer "Enhance polishing system" PAM-C: Variglass 12-fluted carbide burs Compos.: Charisma Revolution Hondrum and GIC: Fuji II "Sof-Lex discs polishing system" Fernandez RM-GIC: Vitremer "Enhance polishing system" (1997) Compos.: AP.H "Composite Finishing System" "Two Striper MFS/MPS diamond polishing system" "Two Striper MPS diamond polishing system" Carbide burs Yap et RM-GIC: Photac Fil "Super Snap Rainbow system" al. (1997) PAM-C: Dyract "Enhance polishing system" Compos.: Z100 White stones Bouvier et RM-GIC: Photac Fil "Sof-Lex discs polishing system" al. (1997) PAM-C: Dyract "Enhance polishing system" Compos.: Z100 Carbide burs Hoelscher et GIC: Ketac-Fil "Sof-Lex discs polishing system" al. (1998) RM-GIC: Fuji II LC "Enhance polishing system" Compos.: Prisma TPH Carbide burs Yap and GIC: Fuji II "Sof-Lex discs polishing system" Mok (2002) RM-GIC: Fuji II LC PAM-C: Dyract AP Compos.: Spectrum TPH Giomer: Reactmer Authors Material Findings St. Germain RM-GIC: Photac Fil --no significant differences and Meiers Fuji II LC between the materials (1996) Vitremer --discs and diamonds were the PAM-C: Variglass most effective instruments --rubber abrasives and pastes were detrimental to these materials Tate and RM-GIC: Fuji II LC --Sof-Lex discs produced the Powers (1996) Vitremer smoothest surface for all the PAM-C: Variglass materials Compos.: Charisma --the best results were achieved Revolution on the composite specimens --application of glaze on RM-GIC was very effective Hondrum and GIC: Fuji II --rotary abrasive instruments Fernandez RM-GIC: Vitremer in sequence was the best (1997) Compos.: AP.H polishing method --the GIC was rougher and less reflective than the composite --the smoothness and gloss of the RM-GIC lies between GIC and resin composites Yap et RM-GIC: Photac Fil --the surface characteristics al. (1997) PAM-C: Dyract after polishing were material Compos.: Z100 dependent Bouvier et RM-GIC: Photac Fil --Sof-Lex discs was the best al. (1997) PAM-C: Dyract polishing method Compos.: Z100 --the composite produced the Carbide burs best results after polishing --the PAM-C gave results similar to the composite rather than to the RM-GIC Hoelscher et GIC: Ketac-Fil --abrasive impregnated discs of al. (1998) RM-GIC: Fuji II LC Enhance polishing system were Compos.: Prisma TPH as effective as Sof-Lex discs --no significant differences between the materials --no significant interaction between type of material and method of polishing Yap and GIC: Fuji II --The GIC and the RM-GIC Mok (2002) RM-GIC: Fuji II LC significantly rougher than the PAM-C: Dyract AP other materials 3 days and 3 Compos.: Spectrum months after polishing TPH --For all materials, no Giomer: Reactmer significant difference between 3 days and 3 months Table 4 Recent comparative studies (since 1995) evaluating the influence of polishing methods on parameters additional to surface texture of dental adhesiverestorative materials. Authors Material Studied properties Yap et al. (1998) RM-GIC: Photac Fil Effect of immediate vs. PAM-C: Dyract delayed (1 week after Compos.: Silux polymerisation) finishing/ Z100 polishing procedures on surface characteristics (roughness, hardness) Lim et al. (1999) RM-GIC: Fuji II LC Influence of finishing time PAM-C: Dyract on the microleakage of Class V restorations placed in extracted human premolars Geiger GIC: Fuji II Effectiveness of poly(acrylic et al. (1999) RM-GIC: Vitremer acid) gel as polishing agent PAM-C: Dyract RM-GIC, Yap et al. (2000) GIC: Fuji II Effect of polishing method on (part 1) RM-GIC: Fuji II LC microleakage of Class V restorations placed in extracted human posterior teeth Yap et al. (2000) PAM-C: Dyract The same methodology used in (part 2) Compos.:Z 100 part 1 Wilder GIC: Fuji II Effect of polishing with et al. (2000) RM-GIC: Fuji II LC Sof-Lex discs (wet vs. dry Vitremer technique) on microleakage and surface texture of Class V restorations placed in extracted human molars Authors Material Findings Yap et al. (1998) RM-GIC: Photac Fil --surface roughness of PAM-C: Dyract composites were not Compos.: Silux influenced by finishing/ Z100 polishing time --delayed finishing/polishing of the RM-GIC and the PAM-C resulted in a smoother surface --for all materials, delayed finishing/polishing had a positive effect op surface hardness Lim et al. (1999) RM-GIC: Fuji II LC --Dyract: * immediately PAM-C: Dyract at both enamel and dentine margins --Fuji II LC: * immediately at dentine margins * delayed at enamel margins Geiger GIC: Fuji II --application of poly(acrylic et al. (1999) RM-GIC: Vitremer acid) gel as polishing agent: PAM-C: Dyract i) was effective RM-GIC, on GIC and ii) had no effect on PAM-C Yap et al. (2000) GIC: Fuji II --the effect of polishing (part 1) RM-GIC: Fuji II LC methods on microleakage was material and tissue dependent --wet polishing of the GIC at ultra-high speed: decrease of microleakage resistance at dentine margins --polishing of the RM-GIC under water-cooling: increase of microleakage resistance at the enamel margins Yap et al. (2000) PAM-C: Dyract --the polishing method had no (part 2) Compos.: Z 100 influence on the microleakage of these restorations Wilder GIC: Fuji II --microleakage was not et al. (2000) RM-GIC: Fuji II LC affected by polishing Vitremer technique --dry polishing produced a smoother surface than wet polishing --they recommended: * dry finishing of RM-GIC * wet finishing of GIC