English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This study compared surface roughness and gloss produced by different finishing/polishing procedures for two resin composites, Clearfil AP-X (AP-X) and Estelite Sigma (ES). A total of 70 composite discs (n=35 for each resin composite) were prepared and divided at random into seven finishing/polishing groups (n=5): glass-pressed control; using a super-fine-grit diamond bur (SF); using CompoMaster (CM) after SF-finishing (SF+CM); using White Point (WP) after SF-finishing (SF+WP); using CM after SF+WP-finishing (SF+WP+CM); using Stainbuster (SB) after SF-finishing (SF+SB); and using CM after SF+SB-finishing (SF+SB+CM). After the finishing/polishing procedures, average surface roughness (R(a)) and surface gloss (Gs(60( degrees ))) of all specimens were assessed with a surface profilometer and specimen gloss meter, respectively. Glass-pressed controls for both AP-X and ES composites showed the best surface finish in terms of both R(a) and Gs(60( degrees )). SF-finishing produced the roughest surface and led to almost complete loss of gloss. While additional polishing with CM reduced R(a) and increased Gs(60( degrees )), the additional finishing effect of WP or SB between SF-finishing and CM-polishing was not found for either AP-X or ES.

Influence of Finishing/Polishing Procedures on the Surface Texture of Two Resin Composites