ArticleThe open dentistry journal2010
Surface roughness of commercial composites after different polishing protocols: an analysis with atomic force microscopy.
Article in The open dentistry journal, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 17 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of different glazing methods on the surface roughness and hardness of zirconia ceramics: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Wear resistance and color stability of innovate esthetical Bioflx crowns compared to zirconia pediatric crowns.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Nicotine-induced changes in surface properties of restorative materials and dental enamel: An in vitro study on flavored e-cigarette exposure.Tobacco induced diseases · 2025Article
- The Contribution of Scanning Force Microscopy on Dental Research: A Narrative Review.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Article
- Surface gloss, gloss retention, and color stability of 2 nano-filled universal resin composites.Restorative dentistry & endodontics · 2022Article
- Biocompatibility and Surface Roughness of Different Sustainable Dental Composite Blocks: Comprehensive In Vitro Study.ACS omega · 2022Article
- Analysis of Surface Roughness and Three-dimensional Scanning Topography of Zirconia Implants before and after Photofunctionalization by Atomic Force Microscopy: AnJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2021Article
- Effect of surface sealant on the surface roughness of different composites and evaluation of their microhardness.European oral research · 2020Article
- The evaluation of surface sealants' effect on the surface roughness of Nano-hybrid composite after polishing with One-Step system (Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2018Article
- The effect of different finishing and polishing techniques on surface roughness and gloss of two nanocomposites.The Saudi dental journal · 2018Article
- Surface Morphology and Tooth Adhesion of a Novel Nanostructured Dental Restorative Composite.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2016Article
- One year comparative clinical evaluation of EQUIA with resin-modified glass ionomer and a nanohybrid composite in noncarious cervical lesions.Journal of conservative dentistry : JCDArticle
- Evaluation of surface roughness of different restorative composites after polishing using atomic force microscopy.Journal of conservative dentistry : JCDArticle
- Evaluation of Surface Properties and Elastic Modulus of CAD-CAM Milled, 3D Printed, and Compression Moulded Denture Base Resins: AnJournal of International Society of Preventive & Community DentistryArticle
- Comparative abrasive wear resistance and surface analysis of dental resin-based materials.European journal of dentistryArticle
- Evaluation of Surface Roughness of Different Direct Resin-based Composites.Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community DentistryArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedBruno, Orlando [corrected to Orlando, Bruno]
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsPolishing may increase the surface roughness of composites, with a possible effect on bacterial growth and material properties. This preliminary in vitro study evaluates the effect of three different polishing systems (PoGo polishers, Enhance, Venus Supra) on six direct resin composites (Gradia Direct, Venus, Venus Diamond, Enamel Plus HFO, Tetric Evoceram, Filtek Supreme XT). MATERIALS AND
methodsFor each composite, 12 square specimens were prepared: 9 specimens were polished, three for each different method, while three specimens were used as controls. Surface roughness was determined with AFM by measuring Root Mean Square (RMS) of average height.
resultsPoGo polisher determined a significantly rougher surface, versus controls, in 5 out of 6 composites evaluated. Some significant differences from unpolished controls were observed also for Enhance polishing. Polishing with Venus Supra did not result in any significant difference in surface roughness versus controls. No differences were observed between different polishing systems.
conclusionsThese preliminary results suggest that Venus Supra polishing system could determine a smoother composite surface if compared to the other polishing systems tested. On this basis, we are conducting an in vivo study to evaluate bacterial colonization on some combinations of composites and polishing protocols.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.