| 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 |
|
| PubMed ID |
Author / Year |
Patient Group |
Study type
(level of evidence) |
| 16161365 | Gedik/2005 | Thirty samples of each of the four microhybrid resin based composites | Laboratory Test | | Key results | Average 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. | | 19862405 | Celik/2009 | Eighteen samples of each three flowable resins and a microhybrid based | Laboratory Test | | Key results | Five 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 |
(General Dentistry) (Dental Hygiene) |
| Keywords |
Polish technique, Sof-Lex Disk, Astrobrush, microhybrid resin
|
| ID# |
2294 |
| Date of submission |
05/07/2012 |
| E-mail |
trevinoa10@livemail.uthscsa.edu |
| Author |
Alejandro J. Trevino |
| Co-author(s) |
|
| Co-author(s) e-mail |
|
| Faculty mentor |
S. Thomas Deahl, II, DMD, PhD |
| Faculty mentor 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?) |
| None available | |
 |
Comments and Evidence-Based Updates on the CAT
(FOR PRACTICING DENTISTS', FACULTY, RESIDENTS and/or STUDENTS COMMENTS ON PUBLISHED CATs) |
| None available | |