ArticleBMC oral health2025
Impact of different polishing and aging procedures on the surface characteristics of bulk-fill resin composites.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Effect of Simulated Oral Aging on Surface Roughness and Microhardness of Bulk-Fill Composite Resins.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to investigate the effects of different polishing systems and artificial aging procedures on the surface roughness, gloss, and microhardness of conventional and bulk-fill resin composites.
methodsOne nanohybrid resin composite [Clearfil Majesty Esthetic (CME)] and three bulk-fill resin composites [SonicFill (SF), Opus APS (O-APS), and FiltekTM Bulk-Fill (FBF)] were evaluated. Ninety specimens were prepared for each material and subjected to 3 polishing protocols [Mylar strip (control), OneGloss, and OptiDisc]. Following polishing, the specimens underwent 3 different aging procedures: distilled water storage, thermocycling, and ultraviolet (UV) aging. Measurements for surface roughness (Ra), gloss (GU), and Vickers microhardness (VHN) were recorded at baseline (T0), after polishing (T1), and post-aging (T2). Atomic force microscopy images of 2 randomly selected specimens from each test subgroup. Data were analyzed using three-way ANOVA and Spearman’s correlation analysis.
resultStatistically significant differences were observed among the materials, polishing systems, and aging procedures for all measured parameters (p < 0.001). FBF consistently exhibited the highest gloss and hardness values and the lowest surface roughness, while SF showed the poorest surface characteristics. The interaction of control × distilled water resulted in superior surface properties. Significant two-way and three-way interactions were found among material, polishing, and aging variables (p < 0.05). Strong negative correlations were identified between surface roughness and gloss values at all time points (r = -0.717 to -0.850), whereas a very weak positive correlation was noted between surface roughness and hardness after aging (r = 0.173, p = 0.001).
conclusionMaterial composition, polishing approach, and aging conditions significantly affected the surface behavior of the resin composites. Among the tested materials, FBF exhibited the most stable microhardness, gloss, and surface smoothness, while SF showed the greatest surface deterioration. Multi-step polishing (OptiDisc) maintained smoother and glossier surfaces than the single-step system (OneGloss). Thermocycling and UV aging produced the most adverse effects on surface quality. The proper combination of a stable bulk-fill composite and a multi-step polishing system is therefore recommended to achieve optimal long-term clinical performance.
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.