ArticleScientific reports2025
Questioning the effectiveness of composite Polishing systems by crosschecking profilometer and dental microscope outcomes.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of Different Polishing Systems on the Surface Roughness of 3D-Printed Resins.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Profilometric analysis of OptraPolJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2026Article
- Article
- The effect of polishing pastes on the surface roughness, microhardness, gloss, and color change of resin composites.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Influence of Composite Polishing Pastes on Surface Roughness and Their Stability After Simulated Tooth Brushing.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- Effect of magnification and press-on force on resin composite polishing.BMC oral health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To investigate the clinical efficiency of the composite polishing systems and procedures by comparing device-based quantitative and visual inspections. Six composite polishing groups were prepared as per polishing discs (fine and super-fine, Sof-Lex), spiral wheels (prepolisher & high-shine-polisher, DiacompPlus), silicone cup (Enhance & Pogo), polishing paste (Lucida), rubber cup (Kenda), and sandpaper (1000 & 1500-grits). All were performed in three steps (3 × 30s), and paste was used for each. Surface roughness (Ra) was measured by a profilometer, and the Surface Roughness Index (SRI) was evaluated using a dental operating microscope (DOM). ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis H, and Friedman tests were used (< 0.050). The first polishing step significantly increased Ra scores (P < 0.05) except for the paste group. The second step decreased Ra for all (P < 0.05). The best results were obtained after using polishing paste as the third step. A weak correlation was found between the SRI and Ra scores (rho = 0.287)(P < 0.001). A weak correlation in the second (rho = 0.460)(P = 0.002) and a moderate correlation in the third step were observed (rho = 0.549)(P < 0.001). Outcomes were different for profilometer Ra and DOM SRI assessments. High SRI scores for the mylar strip corresponded to the low Ra scores. Therefore, Ra measurements may be misleading without DOM confirmation. Crosschecking device-based roughness scores with visual evaluations under magnification might be recommended. Lucida paste enhanced the polishing effectiveness for all systems. Different outcomes may be obtained in vitro through the device-based and visually driven surface roughness analyses, which are important for proper composite polishing system selection clinically. The polishing system and application procedure may affect not only the surface roughness but also the surface morphology of a restoration.
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.