ArticleCureus2025
Effect of Different Polishing Systems on the Polishability and Microhardness of an Alkasite Restorative Material.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIn restorative dentistry, the finishing and polishing of restorative materials are important steps to enhance both the aesthetics and longevity of restorations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of different polishing systems on surface roughness and microhardness of the Cention N alkasite restorative material (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) and compare its light-cured versus self-cured specimens.
methodsThis experimental in vitro study was conducted at the College of Dentistry, Qassim University, Saudi Arabia, from September 2021 to January 2022. Sixty disc-shaped specimens of Cention N were prepared using custom-made moulds (10 mm diameter × 2 mm thickness). Specimens were randomly allocated into three groups (n = 20): Group 1 (control, Mylar strip finish), Group 2 (three-step Sof-Lex disc system), and Group 3 (one-step PoGo system). Half of each group was light-cured (40 seconds at 400 mW/cm²) while the remainder was self-cured. Surface roughness was measured using profilometry (Perthometer M1; Mahr GmbH, Göttingen, Germany) and microhardness assessed via Vickers hardness test (Vickers hardness number, or VHN). Data were analysed using two-way ANOVA and post hoc Bonferroni tests (p < 0.05).
resultsSignificant differences in surface roughness existed between polishing systems (F = 156.731, p < 0.001), with the control group producing the smoothest surface (0.077 ± 0.055 μm), followed by PoGo (0.173 ± 0.039 μm) and Sof-Lex (0.238 ± 0.054 μm). All values remained below the 0.2 μm bacterial adhesion threshold. Significant interaction effects were found for both surface roughness and microhardness (p < 0.001). Light-cured specimens showed significantly higher microhardness than self-cured ones (47.8 ± 0.2 vs. 42.3 ± 0.2 VHN, p < 0.001).
conclusionThe null hypothesis was rejected. While the Mylar strip finish provided optimal smoothness, all polishing systems maintained clinically acceptable surface roughness. Sof-Lex polishing combined with light curing offers superior microhardness, potentially enhancing restoration longevity.
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.