The contrast gloss and the average roughness were measured for four commercial composite filling materials. Using a factorial design, each material was subjected to four available finishing methods. A significant difference was found in the contrast gloss among finishing methods, and a significant linear regression is given which relates the inverse of the contrast gloss to the average roughness. Surface gloss is proposed as playing a major role in the esthetic appearance of composite restorations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Dennison, J.B. and Craig, R.G.: Effects of Various Finishing Devices on Resin Surfaces, JADA83:321-331, 1971. Dennison, J.B.; Fan, P.L.; and Powers, J.M.: Surface Roughness of Microfilled Composites, JADA102:859-862, 1981. Glantz, P.-O. and Larson, L.A.: Surface Roughness of Composite Resins Before and After Finishing, Acta Odontol Scand30:101-108, 1972.
2.
Hunter, R.S.: The Measurement of Appearance, New York: Wiley, 1975, pp. 65-77.
3.
Johnson, L.N.; Jordan, R.E.; and Lynn, J.A.: Effects of Various Finishing Devices on Resin Surfaces, JADA83:321-331, 1971.
4.
Sokal, R.R. and Rohlf, F.J.: Biometry, San Francisco: W.H. Freeman & Co., 1969, pp. 239-246.
5.
Raptis, C.N.; Fan, P.L.; and Powers, J.M.: Properties of Microfilled and Visible Light-Cured Composite Resins , JADA99 :631-633, 1979.
6.
Tolley, L.G.; O'Brien, W.J.; and Dennison, J.B.: Surface Finish of Dental Composite Restorative Materials, J Biomed Mater Res12:233-240, 1978.
