Effect of Finishing and Polishing on The Surface Roughness of Bulk Fill Composites

Abdullah Aljamhan1, Syed Rashid Habib2, *, Mohammed A. AlSarhan3, Bashayer AlZahrani4, Hessa AlOtaibi4, Norah AlSunaidi4
1 Restorative Dental Sciences department, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
2 Department of Prosthetic Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
3 Department of Periodontics and Community Dentistry, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
4 Dental University Hospital, King Saud University Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Article Metrics

CrossRef Citations:
Total Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 1109
Abstract HTML Views: 425
PDF Downloads: 306
Total Views/Downloads: 1840
Unique Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 510
Abstract HTML Views: 267
PDF Downloads: 279
Total Views/Downloads: 1056

Creative Commons License
© 2021 Al Jamhan et al.

open-access license: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0), a copy of which is available at: This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

* Address correspondence to this author at Department of Prosthetic Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, P. O. Box 60169, King Abdullah Road, Riyadh, 11545, Saudi Arabia; Tel: 966-1-467 7230; Mobile: 966-534750834; Fax: 966-1-467 8548; E-mail:;



The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the effect of three finishing/polishing systems on the surface roughness (Ra) of conventional and Bulk-fill composite resins.

Materials and methods:

The Ra values of three different brands of Bulk-fill composites (Filtek Bulk-fill®, 3M ESPE; SonicFill Bulk-fill®, Kerr; SDR Bulk-fill®, Dentsply) were tested and compared with the Ra of a conventional composite (Filtek XT Z350®, 3M ESPE). A total of 30 discs (10 mm × 2 mm) were fabricated from four test materials and divided into three groups (n = 10/group) depending on the three finishing/polishing systems used (Astropol®, Ivoclar Vivadent; PoGo®, Dentsply; Sof-LexTM®, 3M ESPE). The Ra of each specimen was recorded with an optical profilometer (Contour-GT-X®, USA). ANOVA and Tukey’s tests were used for statistical analysis.


Statistically significant differences (P < 0.05) were observed between the Ra values of all composite materials tested with three finishing/polishing systems. Among composite materials, only Group-III showed a significant difference (P = 0.003) in Ra obtained using all three finishing/polishing systems. SDR Bulk-fill® and Filtek XT Z350® showed the highest (0.810 ± 0.373 µm) and lowest (0.365 ± 0.119 µm) Ra values, respectively. Individually, the highest Ra was recorded for SDR Bulk-fill® when it was finished/polished with the Astropol® system. SonicFill Bulk-fill® and SDR Bulk-fill® composites exhibited the lowest Ra values when they were finished with the PoGo® system.


Finishing and polishing techniques greatly affect the surface roughness of different Bulk-fill composites because variations in the surface roughness were observed for all tested composite materials. Filtek XT Z350® exhibited the lowest surface roughness, while SDR Bulk-fill® exhibited the highest surface roughness among the tested composite materials.

Keywords: Composite, Bulk-fill composites, Dental restorations, Composite fillings, Finishing system, Polishing system.