Operator variability using different polishing methods and surface geometry of a nanohybrid composite

This study evaluated the operator variability of different finishing and polishing techniques. After placing 120 composite restorations (Tetric EvoCeram) in plexiglassmolds, the surface of the specimens was roughened in a standardized manner. Twelve operators with different experience levels polished the specimens using the following finishing/polishing procedures: method 1 (40 ?m diamond [40D], 15 ?m diamond [15D], 42 ?m silicon carbide polisher [42S], 6 ?m silicon carbide polisher [6S] and Occlubrush [O]); method 2 (40D, 42S, 6S and O); method 3 (40D, 42S, 6S and PoGo); method 4 (40D, 42S and PoGo) and method 5 (40D, 42S and O). The mean surface roughness (Ra) was measured with a profilometer. Differences between the methods were analyzed with non-parametric ANOVA and pairwise Wilcoxon signed rank tests (?=0.05). All the restorations were qualitatively assessed using SEM. Methods 3 and 4 showed the best polishing results and method 5 demonstrated the poorest. Method 5 was also most dependent on the skills of the operator. Except for method 5, all of the tested procedures reached a clinically acceptable surface polish of Ra?0.2 ?m. Polishing procedures can be simplified without increasing variability between operators and without jeopardizing polishing results.