ORAL HEALTH EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE PROGRAM
View the CAT printer-friendly / share this CAT
spacer
Title The Sof-Lex Disk Polishing Technique Provides A Smoother Surface On Microhybrid Composites Than The Astro-brush Silicone Polishing Technique
Clinical Question In an adult dental patient needing a smooth surface for their microhybrid composite restoration, does the sof-lex disk technique as compared to the astro-brush Silicone polishing technique provide a less rough surface?
Clinical Bottom Line The two articles complement each other showing evidence that for microhybrid composite surfaces a smoother surface is achieved with the sof-lex disk polishing technique. Gedik reveals that out of several polishing techniques the astrobrush Silicone resulted in the highest surface roughness and the Sof-Lex disk was among the best techniques at providing the smoothest surface. Also, according to Celik, the pop-on Sof-Lex disks produced a smoother surface on microhybrid and flowable composites as compared to the Astrobrush Silicone polishing technique.
Best Evidence (you may view more info by clicking on the PubMed ID link)
PubMed ID Author / Year Patient Group Study type
(level of evidence)
#1) 16161365Gedik/2005Thirty samples of each of the four microhybrid resin based compositesLaboratory Test
Key resultsAverage surface roughness was of greatest value after using the astro-brush (Ivoclar Vivadent) technique on all microhybrid composite resins. Aluminum oxide sof-lex disks (3M ESPSE), Enhance Finishing System (Dentsply-Caulk), and Astropol finishing (Ivoclar Vivadent) produced the smoothest surface. All polishing systems were applied after a multi-fluted carbide bur finished the microhybrid composites. The best value of lowest surface roughness on the tested resin based composites were P=.05 for the sof-lex system and P=.35 for the astro-brush technique.
#2) 19862405Celik/2009Eighteen samples of each three flowable resins and a microhybrid based Laboratory Test
Key resultsFive tracings on each resin based sample were made at different locations. Each sample was then either polished by the Astro-brush or Sof-Lex technique. The smoothest surface on all materials was by the Sof-Lex Disks (3M ESPSE). With the second technique, using Astr-obrush (Ivoclar Vivadent), Admira Flow received the highest average surface roughness value. The overall mean value of surface roughness on the restorative materials for Sof Lex (P=.05) was smoother in comparison to the Astro-brush technique (P=.42).
Evidence Search sof-Lex AND astrobrush
Comments on
The Evidence
In the Gedik study, all four microhybrid composite samples were designed the same and then randomly assigned to one of the different polishing techniques. The samples under sof-lex polishing were treated with aluminum oxide disks at coarse (55 micrometers), medium (40 um), fine (24 um) and ultra fine (8 um). Under the astro-brush, samples were treated with a silicon carbide–impregnated polyamide bristle brush. At the end of all polishing, the samples were equally rinsed and air-dried free of debris to then obtain mean surface roughness values. The Celik study reduced variability by using a single operator to prepare each specimen for polishing procedures. Also, each sample was randomly assigned to either the sof-lex or astro brush technique. The two-way Anova determined the mean surface roughness values on the restorative resins. All values for both studies revealed a shared outlook of smaller roughness values for the soflex polishing technique.
Applicability Both studies apply to the proper finishing of microhybrid composite restorations in order to improve patient oral health. Dentists who provide a smooth surface to their restorations lessen the chance of plaque accumulation, gingival irritation, and surface staining. Specifically for this study, patient restorations done with microhybrid resins are given a smoother surface when the dentist utilizes the sof-lex disk technique.
Specialty/Discipline (General Dentistry)
Keywords Polish technique, Sof-Lex Disk, Astrobrush, microhybrid resin
ID# 2294
Date of submission: 05/07/2012spacer
E-mail trevinoa10@livemail.uthscsa.edu
Author Alejandro J. Trevino
Co-author(s)
Co-author(s) e-mail
Faculty mentor/Co-author S. Thomas Deahl, II, DMD, PhD
Faculty mentor/Co-author e-mail deahl@uthscsa.edu
Basic Science Rationale
(Mechanisms that may account for and/or explain the clinical question, i.e. is the answer to the clinical question consistent with basic biological, physical and/or behavioral science principles, laws and research?)
post a rationale
None available
spacer
Comments on the CAT
(FOR PRACTICING DENTISTS' and/or FACULTY COMMENTS ON PUBLISHED CATs)
post a comment
None available
spacer

Return to Found CATs list