Comparative Evaluation of the Surface Roughness and Surface Polishability of a Ceramopolymer Restoration: A Profilometric Analysis

Objectives The objective of this study is to analyse and compare the surface roughness and polishability of indirect and direct composite ceramage. Material and Methods A total of 60 specimens were divided into four groups: Group I (n = 15): Beautifil II Composite (Shofu Inc.) - Control group, Group II (n = 15): Beautifil II Composite (Shofu Inc.) – Super-Snap X-TREME (Shofu Inc.), Group III (n = 15): Ceramage: microhybrid composite (Shofu Inc.) - Control group, Group IV (n = 15): Ceramage: microhybrid composite (Shofu Inc.) – Ceramage Polishing Kit HP (Shofu Inc.). The prepared samples had a diameter of 6 mm and a height of 2 mm. Group I and II samples were polymerised using light-emitting diode units. While group III and group IV were cured using Solidilite V, a profilometer was used to measure the surface roughness after the finishing and polishing procedures. Results The current study’s findings show that regardless of the kind of composite utilised, polishing treatment on the surface of the material helped minimise surface roughness. A one way ANOVA showed that there is a significant difference in surface roughness between the four groups. Conclusion Given the study’s constraints, it can be concluded that the indirect composite Ceramage with the Ceramage Polishing Kit HP can produce a lower surface roughness as compared to the direct composite Beautifil II.