ArticleCureus2025
Assessment of Surface Roughness of Composite Resins Polished With Different Systems and Speeds: A Comparative In Vitro Study.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe surface smoothness of resin composite restorations is critical for their esthetic appeal and clinical longevity because rough surfaces may promote bacterial adhesion and compromise durability. This study aimed to compare the surface roughness of nanofilled resin composite restorations polished with Enhance, Sof-Lex Diamond, and Shape Guard systems at high and low speeds using Mylar strip-finished samples as a control. The objectives were to evaluate intergroup differences in surface roughness via profilometry, assess the impact of polishing speed, and identify the most effective system for achieving minimal roughness to enhance clinical outcomes. MATERIALS AND
methodsSeventy cylindrical composite discs (8 mm diameter × 4 mm depth) were fabricated using a nanofilled resin composite, polymerized with a curing unit, and stored in distilled water at 37°C for 24 h. Ten samples cured against Mylar strips served as the control group (Group 4) without further polishing. The remaining 60 samples were roughened with 600-grit sandpaper and randomly assigned to three groups (20 samples each): Group 1 (Enhance), Group 2 (Sof-Lex Diamond), and Group 3 (Shape Guard). Each group was subdivided into high-speed (15,000 revolutions per minute (rpm)) and low-speed (5,000 rpm) subgroups (10 samples each). Polishing was performed for 20 s under dry conditions using a micromotor with a contra-angle hand piece. The surface roughness (Ra, µm) was measured using a calibrated stylus profilometer, using three readings per sample to calculate the mean values. Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's post hoc test (p < 0.05).
resultsThe Mylar control group exhibited the lowest mean surface roughness (0.21 ± 0.07 µm). Among polished groups, Sof-Lex at high speed produced the smoothest surface (0.23 ± 0.07 µm), followed by Shape Guard at high speed (0.27 ± 0.09 µm). The Enhance system at low speed yielded the highest surface roughness (0.42 ± 0.14 µm). ANOVA confirmed significant differences among the groups (p = 0.001), thus rejecting the null hypothesis. Sof-Lex and Shape Guard at high speed matched the smoothness of the control, whereas Enhance performed inferiorly.
conclusionThe Sof-Lex Diamond and Shape Guard systems, particularly when utilized at elevated velocities, achieved superior surface smoothness that closely competed with Mylar-finished controls. These systems are recommended for clinical use to optimize restoration esthetics and durability, although further in vivo studies are needed to confirm their long-term 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.