Effect of Polishing Direction on the Marginal Adaptation of Composite Resin Restorations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PROBLEM: Polishing composite resin restorations may lead to marginal defects and gap formation. PURPOSE: To assess the effect of polishing direction on the marginal adaptation of composite resin restorations using two composite resins and two polishing systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty extracted human molars were sectioned along their mesio-distal axis. Buccal and lingual enamel was flattened and a triangular preparation, 0.87-mm deep and 3-mm wide, representing two 60° bevels, was performed. Specimens were randomly assigned to eight groups (N = 20) and restored with two composite resins: a nanofilled (Filtek Supreme Ultra, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) or a microhybrid (Point 4, Kerr, Orange, CA, USA) and finished with two polishing techniques: polishing discs (Sof-Lex XT, 3M ESPE) or rubber polishers (HiLuster Plus, Kerr, Bioggio, Switzerland). On each specimen, both margins were polished with the same technique, one margin from composite resin to tooth and the other from tooth to composite resin. Replicas were made for field emission scanning electron microscope observation (200×) and quantitative margin analysis was performed based on four criteria. Data were analyzed with a paired-sample t-test, a two-sample t-test, and one-way analysis of variance or their nonparametric analog. RESULTS: Significant differences were found in most groups between polishing directions with better marginal adaptation from composite resin to tooth than from tooth to composite resin. Differences between composite resins and polishing techniques seemed to be dependent on certain combinations of composite resin, polishing technique, and polishing direction. CONCLUSION: Polishing from composite resin to tooth leads to better marginal adaptation than polishing from tooth to composite resin. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The results obtained from this in vitro study suggest that polishing direction influences the marginal adaptation of composite resins and that polishing from composite resin to tooth structure should be clinically performed whenever possible on accessible margins to preserve marginal integrity and esthetics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".