Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 327–335 | Cite as

Nine prophylactic polishing pastes: impact on discoloration, gloss, and surface properties of a CAD/CAM resin composite

  • Anja LiebermannEmail author
  • Sebastian Spintzyk
  • Marcel Reymus
  • Ernst Schweizer
  • Bogna Stawarczyk
Original Article



To investigate discoloration reduction and changes of surface properties of a CAD/CAM resin composite after 14 days´ storage in red wine and polishing with nine different prophylactic polishing pastes (PPPs).

Materials and methods

Rectangular discs (N = 172) were fabricated and polished (P4000) using GC Cerasmart (GC Europe) to investigate different polishing protocols with 1–4 related descending PPPs (22 in total): Cleanic/CLE-Kerr, CleanJoy/CLJ-Voco, Clean Polish/Super Polish/SPO-Kerr, Clinpro Prophy Paste/CPP-3M, Détartrine/DET-Septodont, Nupro/NUP-Dentsply Sirona, Prophy Paste CCS/CCS-Directa, Proxyt/PXT-Ivoclar Vivadent, and Zircate/ZIR Prophy Paste-Dentsply Sirona. Surface properties (roughness values (RV)/Ra, Rz, Rv, surface free energy (SFE), surface gloss (G), and discoloration (ΔE)) were analyzed before and after storage and additional polishing. Data were examined using Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, three-way ANOVA followed by Tukey-B post hoc, Mann-Whitney U, and Kruskal-Wallis H tests (α < 0.05).


Regarding RV, CLE, followed by CCS, and CPP showed the highest values; the lowest presented SPO and DET (p < 0.001). No impact of PPP was observed on ΔE values (p = 0.160). The lowest SFE presented DET, followed by SPO; highest showed CCS followed by NUP and CPP (p < 0.001). Within G, lowest values were observed for CLE and NUP, followed by CCS, ZIP, and CLJ (p < 0.001); the highest presented SPO (p < 0.001). Polishing showed generally a positive impact on SFE values (p < 0.001–p = 0.007), except ZIP (p = 0.322) and CLE (p = 0.083). G increased and RV decreased after polishing (p < 0.001), except SPO, with no significant change for G (p = 0.786).


Polishing with PPPs improves the surface properties and is generally recommended. The choice of PPP has a minor role in removing discolorations. Multi-step systems should be carried out conscientiously.

Clinical relevance

The proper selection of PPP is essential for the clinical outcome of surface properties of prosthetic restorations. Not every polishing paste leads to the same final surface quality.


Prophylactic polishing paste CAD/CAM resin composite Surface gloss Surface roughness Surface free energy Discoloration 



The authors would like to thank 3M, Dentsply Sirona, Directa, Ivoclar Vivadent, Kerr, Septodont, and Voco for providing the materials used in this study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.


  1. 1.
    Alt V, Hannig M, Wöstmann B, Balkenhol M (2001) Fracture strength of temporary fixed partial dentures: CAD/CAM versus directly fabricated restorations. Dent Mater 27:339–347. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nguyen JF, Migonney V, Ruse ND, Sadoun M (2012) Resin composite blocks via high-pressure high-temperature polymerization. Dent Mater 28:529–534. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stawarczyk B, Özcan M, Trottmann A, Schmutz F, Roos M, Hämmerle C (2013) Two-body wear rate of CAD/CAM resin blocks and their enamel antagonists. J Prosthet Dent 109:325–332. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Awad D, Stawarczyk B, Liebermann A, Ilie N (2015) Translucency of esthetic dental restorative CAD/CAM materials and composite resins with respect to thickness and surface roughness. J Prosthet Dent 113:534–540. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mörmann WH1, Stawarczyk B, Ender A, Sener B, Attin T, Mehl A (2013) Wear characteristics of current aesthetic dental restorative CAD/CAM materials: two-body wear, gloss retention, roughness and martens hardness. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 20:113–125. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Heimer S, Schmidlin PR, Roos M, Stawarczyk B (2017) Surface properties of polyetheretherketone after different laboratory and chairside polishing protocols. J Prosthet Dent 117:419–425. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heimer S, Schmidlin PR, Stawarczyk B (2017) Discoloration of PMMA, composite, and PEEK. Clin Oral Investig 21:1191–1200. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Heimer S, Schmidlin PR, Stawarczyk B (2016) Effect of different cleaning methods of polyetheretherketone on surface roughness and surface free energy properties. J Appl Biomater Funct Mater 14:e248–e255. Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Neme Al FKB, Roeder LB, Debner TL (2002) Effect of prophylactic polishing protocols on the surface roughness of esthetic restorative materials. Oper Dent 27:50–58Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Patil SS, Rakhewar PS, Limaye PS, Chaudhari NP (2015) A comparative evaluation of plaque-removing efficacy of air polishing and rubber-cup, bristle brush with paste polishing on oral hygiene status: a clinical study. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 5:457–462. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kristoffersson K, Axelsson P, Bratthall D (1984) Effect of a professional tooth cleaning program on interdentally localized Streptococcus mutans. Caries Res 18:385–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bames CM (2009) The science of polishing. Dimen. Dent Hyg 7:18–22Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Salami D, Luz MA (2003) Effect of prophylactic treatments on the superficial roughness of dental tissues and of two esthetic restorative materials. Pesqui Odontol Bras 17:63–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gomes HS, Vieira LA, Costa PS, Batista AC, Costa LR (2016) Professional dental prophylaxis increases salivary cortisol in children with dental behavioural management problems: a longitudinal study. BMC Oral Health 16:74. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Strassler HE, Baum G (1993) Current concepts in polishing composite resins. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 3:12–17Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yap AU, Lye KW, Sau CW (1997) Surface characteristics of tooth-colored restoratives polished utilizing different polishing systems. Oper Dent 22:260–265Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hoelscher DC, Neme AM, Pink FE, Hughes PJ (1998) The effect of three finishing systems on four esthetic restorative materials. Oper Dent 23:36–42Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Setcos JC, Tarim B, Suzuki S (1999) Surface finish produced on resin composites by new polishing systems. Quintessence Int 30:169–173Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Goldstein RE (1989) Finishing of composites and laminates. Dent Clin N Am 33:305–318Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lutz F, Sener B, Imfeld T, Barbakow F, Schupbach P (1993) Self-adjusting abrasiveness: a new technology for prophylaxis pastes. Quintessence Int 24:53–63Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fruits TJ, Miranda FJ, Coury TL (1996) Effects of equivalent abrasive grit sizes utilizing differing polishing motions on selected restorative materials. Quintessence Int 27:279–285Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Quirynen M, Bollen CM (1995) The influence of surface roughness and surface-free energy on supra- and subgingival plaque formation in man: a review of the literature. J Clin Periodontol 22:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Heintze SD, Forjanic M, Ohmiti K, Rousson V (2010) Surface deterioration of dental materials after simulated toothbrushing in relation to brushing time and load. Dent Mater 26:306–319. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Heintze SD, Forjanic M, Rousson V (2006) Surface roughness and gloss of dental materials as a function of force and polishing time in vitro. Dent Mater 22:146–165 Epub 2005 Aug 9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Venturini D, Cenci MS, Demarco FF, Camacho GB, Powers JM (2006) Effect of polishing techniques and time on surface roughness, hardness and microleakage of resin composite restorations. Oper Dent 31:11–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Monaco C, Arena A, Özcan M (2014) Effect of prophylactic polishing pastes on roughness and translucency of lithium disilicate ceramic. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 34:e26–e29. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    O’Brien WJ, Johnston WM, Fanian F, Lambert S (1984) The surface roughness and gloss of composites. J Dent Res 63:685–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Campbell PM, Johnston WM, WJ O’B (1986) Light scattering and gloss of an experimental quartz-filled composite. J Dent Res 65:892–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ikeda M, Matin K, Nikaido T, Foxton RM, Tagami J (2007) Effect of surface characteristics on adherence of S. mutans biofilms to indirect resin composites. Dent Mater J 26:915–923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Can Say E, Yurdagüven H, Malkondu Ö, Ünlü N, Soyman M, Kazazoğlu E (2014) The effect of prophylactic polishing pastes on surface roughness of indirect restorative materials. ScientificWorldJournal 2014:962764. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ohara N, Koizumi H, Matsumoto Y, Nakayama D, Ogino T, Matsumara H (2009) Surface roughness and gloss of indirect composite etched with acidulated phosphate fluoride solution. Acta Odontol Scand 67:313–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kakaboura A, Fragouli M, Rahiotis C, Silikas N (2007) Evaluation of surface characteristics of dental composites using profilometry, scanning electron, atomic force microscopy and gloss-meter. J Mater Sci Mater Med 18:155–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Reis AF, Giannini M, Lovadino JR, Ambrosano GM (2003) Effects of various finishing systems on the surface roughness and staining susceptibility of packable composite resins. Dent Mater 19:12–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Baseren M (2004) Surface roughness of nanofill and nanohybrid compositeresin and ormocer-based tooth-colored restorative materials after several finishing and polishing procedures. J Biomater Appl 19:121–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Attar N (2007) The effect of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface roughness of composite resin materials. J Contemp Dent Pract 8:27–35Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Türkün LS, Türkün M (2004) The effect of one-step polishing system on the surface roughness of three esthetic resin composite materials. Oper Dent 29-2:203–211Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chung KH (1994) Effects of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface texture of resin composites. Dent Mater 10:325–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Strassler H (1990) Polishing composite resins to perfection depends on the filler. Dent Off 10:9–10Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Warren DP, Colescott TD, Henson HA, Powers JM (2017) Effects of four prophylaxis pastes on surface roughness of a composite, a hybrid ionomer, and a compomer restorative material. J Esthet Restor Dent 14:245–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sugiyama T, Kameyama A, Enokuchi T, Haruyama A, Chiba A, Sugiyama S, Hosaka M, Takahashi T (2017) Effect of professional dental prophylaxis on the surface gloss and roughness of CAD/CAM restorative materials. J Clin ExpDent 9:e772–e778. Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Teughels W, Van Assche N, Sliepen I, Quirynen M (2006) Effect of material characteristics and/or surface topography on biofilm development. Clin Oral Implants Res 17:68–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ruyter IE, Nilner K, Moller B (1987) Color stability of dental composite resin materials for crown and bridge veneers. Dent Mater 3:246–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Prosthetic DentistryKlinikum der Universität MünchenMunichGermany
  2. 2.Section Medical Materials Science & TechnologyUniversity Hospital TübingenTübingenGermany
  3. 3.Department of Conservative Dentistry and PeriodontologyKlinikum der Universität München, LMU MünchenMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations