Rosen, M.Grossman, E. S.Cleaton-Jones, P. E.2016-04-282016-04-282001Rosen, M., Grossman, E.S., Cleaton-Jones, P.E., et al.2001.Surface roughness of aesthetic restorative materials: an in vitro comparison. Journal of the South African dental association;56(7):316-320http://hdl.handle.net/10539/20267KIMThe purpose of this study was to compare the surface roughness of three types of aesthetic restorative material. Six standard samples of two brands of each type of material were prepared namely: hybrid composites (Prodigy, Z100), compomers (Compoglass F, Hytac Aplitip) and glass ionomer cements (Photac-Fil, Vitremer) in a perspex mould (N = 36). Upper and lower surfaces were covered with Mylar strips which, in turn, were covered with glass slides and compressed to express excess material. After light curing, specimens were stored in distilled water for 14 days. Thereafter, one side of each specimen was polished sequentially with medium, fine and super fine Soflex discs (treatment). Untreated surfaces served as controls. All surfaces were examined with Talysurf and the surface roughness (Ra) of each specimen was recorded. Three measurements were made of each specimen. A 4-way ANOVA and Tukey's Studentised range test were used to analyse the data. Statistically significant effects were found for both type of material (P = 0.0001) and for treatment process (P = 0.0065). Among unpolished specimens: Compoglass F is significantly rougher than Vitremer, Z100, Prodigy and Hytac Aplitip, and compomers are significantly rougher than hybrids. Among polished specimens: Photac-Fil is significantly rougher than Z100 but does not differ from Compoglass F, Vitremer, Prodigy and Hytac Aplitip, and glass ionomers are also significantly rougher than hybrids. The smoothest surface is obtained when curing materials against a Mylar strip.enEsthetics, DentalDental Restoration, PermanentComposite ResinsArticle