+90 538 073 12 11
TR EN
MenuClose
Phone: +90 538 073 12 11
TR EN

CLINICAL GUIDE · COMPOSITES AND ADHESION

Finishing and polishing anterior composites: roughness, gloss and maintenance

Dr. Ferit Çiftçi · Last updated: 5 November 2026 · Sources checked: 5 November 2026

CLINICAL SUMMARY

The German S3 guideline recommends polishing composite restorations for surface quality.1 A 1997 review reports a threshold roughness of Ra 0.2 µm for bacterial retention, suggested by some in vivo studies, and lists shaping composite against a matrix among the clinical techniques that give a very smooth surface.2 A 2018 systematic review, however, reported that the effect of roughness on bacterial adhesion seems related not to a threshold but to a range.12 In the laboratory, abrasive paper discs on nanohybrid and nanofill composites, and a silicon carbide brush on microfill composites, are associated with the smoothest surface.3

This article is written for dentists; it is not patient information or a treatment recommendation. It is not a peer-reviewed publication; it is a literature-based clinical guide by Dr. Ferit Çiftçi. References and a methods note are at the end.

On this page

Why does the surface matter?

According to the review by Bollen and colleagues, some in vivo studies suggested a threshold roughness of Ra 0.2 µm for bacterial retention; below it, no further reduction in accumulation was expected, while above it plaque accumulation rose, and with it the risk of caries and periodontal inflammation. The effect of treatment procedures on roughness depends on the material.2 A 2018 systematic review, however, reported that this effect seems related not to a threshold but to a range.12 The risk of staining in anterior direct composites may be influenced by the final surface roughness.4 The review on water use likewise links rough surfaces with staining, plaque accumulation, gingival irritation, recurrent caries and the patient's tactile perception.5

Surface roughness is among the most reported complications of composite veneers.6 In freehand anterior composites followed for at least 24 months, the pooled proportion with recorded change in surface quality was 21% (95% CI 9 to 35), with high heterogeneity between studies. In the same review, colour alteration was 14% and marginal discolouration 21%, and the authors stress that the absence of recorded deterioration does not by itself mean aesthetic success.7 Polishing is therefore a maintenance matter for review appointments as much as for the day the restoration is finished.

Choosing the polishing system and material

In a network meta-analysis of laboratory studies (34 studies after title and abstract screening), the probability that abrasive paper discs give the smoothest surface on nanohybrid and nanofill composites was between 83% and 91.6%; for microfill composites, the corresponding probability for a silicon carbide brush is given as 78.2%. A network meta-analysis was not possible for hybrid and microhybrid composites.3 These probability statements are the authors' and are reported from a SUCRA ranking analysis; they describe how the systems rank against each other, not how smooth the resulting surface is, and they come from laboratory studies.

A 2014 review of 28 laboratory studies found no in vitro evidence that nanofill or submicron composites give a smoother or glossier surface than microhybrids, or keep it better.8 The absence of such evidence does not show that the materials are equivalent. A systematic review of 11 studies found the evidence insufficient to decide whether the combination of composite and polishing system influences final roughness.4

Gloss is related to roughness. In a review of 13 laboratory studies, more than half of the studies reported a linear correlation between roughness and gloss, ranging from r² = 0.34 to 0.96, and the gloss threshold corresponding to 0.2 µm roughness was estimated at above 55 GU; most of the evidence was at moderate or high risk of bias.9 A review of water use during finishing and polishing found no clinical studies; six laboratory studies favoured neither wet nor dry procedures.5

In a review of surface sealants that included only randomised trials (6 trials; 2 at low risk of bias, 3 with some concerns, 1 at high risk), the sealant improved clinical outcomes in 4. Marginal adaptation improved in 3, two of which also showed less marginal discolouration, and wear decreased in 2; there was no significant effect on surface roughness or postoperative sensitivity, and findings on colour matching were inconsistent.10 The review covers composite restorations in general and is not specific to anterior teeth; how far these findings apply to anterior composites is not shown by this source.

Step-by-step protocol

  1. Plan finishing when you plan the restoration: decide in advance how close to the final surface you will build and which finishing burs, if any, you will use, and complete polishing after the planned finishing.4
  2. Where the situation allows, shape the final layer against a matrix or clear strip; this is listed among the clinical techniques that give a very smooth surface.2 Complete polishing after the planned finishing; decide in the plan which finishing burs will be needed.4
  3. Choose a polishing system compatible with the composite and follow its instructions for sequence, speed and pressure; this article gives no universal values. In laboratory rankings, abrasive paper discs ranked highest on nanohybrid and nanofill composites and a silicon carbide brush on microfill composites.3 Whether the combination of composite and polisher changes final roughness has not been determined.4
  4. Decide on water use according to the manufacturer's instructions; the available laboratory evidence favours neither wet nor dry procedures.5
  5. Gloss measurement may supplement assessment; the above-55 GU value is a reference proposed from laboratory data, not a validated clinical acceptance criterion.9
  6. A surface sealant may be considered as an option with limited evidence rather than as a routine step; in some randomised trials within a review not limited to anterior teeth it improved marginal adaptation and wear, and the authors judged the evidence limited.10
  7. The finished restoration can be assessed against categories of the revised FDI criteria such as form and contour, marginal adaptation, proximal contact, occlusion, and surface lustre and texture within the functional and aesthetic domains.11 Finishing invariably roughens the surface and should always be followed by polishing; re-polish any area adjusted with burs at this stage.12
  8. At reviews, record surface, colour and margins with the criteria used in step 7; change in surface quality is frequently recorded in long-term follow-up.6, 7 The revised FDI criteria link scores to reviewing and monitoring (1-4), refurbishment (3), repair (4) or replacement (5); according to the authors, this structure may help standardise evaluation.11

Common errors and fixes

ErrorFix
Leaving a bur-finished surface unpolished.Finishing invariably roughens the surface; follow it with polishing.12 Where the situation allows, shaping the final layer against a matrix or clear strip is listed among the clinical techniques that give a very smooth surface; decide in the plan which finishing burs will be needed.2, 4
Using the same polishing sequence for every composite.Take the composite type into account and follow the system's instructions; laboratory rankings differ by composite type.3
Choosing a composite on the promise of gloss alone.An advantage of nanofill or submicron composites in this respect has not been shown in the laboratory.8
Finishing without a plan and trying to correct with polishing.Include finishing burs, and how close to the final surface the composite will be built, in the restoration plan.4
Assuming a fixed re-polishing interval is evidence-based.This search found no source establishing a fixed interval. At reviews, assess surface lustre and texture, marginal staining and colour match with the revised FDI criteria, which link scores to monitoring, refurbishment, repair or replacement.11

Level of evidence

What is known

Some in vivo studies, reported in a 1997 review, suggested a threshold of Ra 0.2 µm for plaque retention; the effect of treatment on roughness depends on the material.2 A 2018 systematic review of 18 studies on various restorative materials (12 in vitro, 4 in situ, 2 clinical) reported that the effect of roughness on bacterial adhesion seems related not to a threshold, as previously believed, but to a range; the studies were highly heterogeneous and 11 were at high risk of bias.12 The 0.2 µm value should therefore not be read on its own as a clinical acceptance limit. Discs on nanohybrid and nanofill composites, and a silicon carbide brush on microfill composites, are associated with the smoothest surface in the laboratory.3 Six laboratory studies on water use favoured neither wet nor dry procedures, and no clinical study was found.5 Surface sealants showed benefits for marginal adaptation and wear in some randomised trials within a review not limited to anterior teeth.10

What is not known

Most of the evidence comes from laboratory studies.3, 5, 8 The review on nanofill and submicron composites dates from 2014 and does not cover materials introduced since.8 The PubMed search recorded for this article (repeated on 5 November 2026) found no published randomised trial results comparing the clinical outcomes of different polishing protocols on anterior teeth; trial registries were not searched systematically. How laboratory roughness translates into staining and plaque accumulation in the mouth has not been shown directly by these sources. No source establishing a fixed re-polishing interval or method was found; the revised FDI criteria offer a framework for assessment and refurbishment at reviews.11 The 55 GU value is a reference proposed in the laboratory, without clinical validation.9

At the chair

  • Are finishing burs, and how close to the final surface the composite will be built, set in the restoration plan?
  • Where possible, was the final layer shaped against a matrix or clear strip?
  • Were areas finished or adjusted with burs completed with polishing?
  • Is the polishing system compatible with the composite, and are its instructions followed?
  • If gloss is measured, is the value read as a laboratory reference only?
  • If a surface sealant is considered, has it been weighed that the evidence is limited and not specific to anterior teeth?
  • Was the finished restoration assessed for form and contour, margins, contacts, occlusion and surface?
  • Are surface, colour and margins recorded at reviews?

References

  1. Sekundo C, Frese C, Frankenberger R, Haak R, Braun A, Krämer N, et al. Direct Composite Restorations on Permanent Teeth in the Anterior and Posterior Region - An Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline - Part 2: Recommendations for Composite Processing. J Adhes Dent. 2024;26:201-212. PMID: 39286911 · DOI: 10.3290/j.jad.b5749192
  2. Bollen CM, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature. Dent Mater. 1997;13(4):258-69. PMID: 11696906 · DOI: 10.1016/s0109-5641(97)80038-3
  3. de Oliveira AG, Rocha RS, Spinola MDS, Batista GR, Bresciani E, Caneppele TMF. Surface smoothness of resin composites after polishing-A systematic review and network meta-analysis of in vitro studies. Eur J Oral Sci. 2023;131(2):e12921. PMID: 36781294 · DOI: 10.1111/eos.12921
  4. Devlukia S, Hammond L, Malik K. Is surface roughness of direct resin composite restorations material and polisher-dependent? A systematic review. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2023;35(6):947-967. PMID: 37458370 · DOI: 10.1111/jerd.13102
  5. Silva JP, Coelho A, Paula A, Amaro I, Saraiva J, Ferreira MM, et al. The Influence of Irrigation during the Finishing and Polishing of Composite Resin Restorations-A Systematic Review of In Vitro Studies. Materials (Basel). 2021;14(7). PMID: 33805399 · DOI: 10.3390/ma14071675
  6. Lim TW, Tan SK, Li KY, Burrow MF. SURVIVAL AND COMPLICATION RATES OF RESIN COMPOSITE LAMINATE VENEERS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2023;23(4):101911. PMID: 38035903 · DOI: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2023.101911
  7. Chauca-Bajaña L, Zambrano Manzaba GG, Campos Lascano LF, Teran Sanchez NJ, Ordoñez Balladares A, Ordoñez Balladares MA, et al. Long-Term Aesthetic Performance of Freehand Direct Anterior Composite Resin Restorations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Colour Alteration, Marginal Discolouration, and Surface-Quality Deterioration. Dent J (Basel). 2026;14(10). PMID: 42930399 · DOI: 10.3390/dj14100633
  8. Kaizer MR, de Oliveira-Ogliari A, Cenci MS, Opdam NJ, Moraes RR. Do nanofill or submicron composites show improved smoothness and gloss? A systematic review of in vitro studies. Dent Mater. 2014;30(4):e41-78. PMID: 24529799 · DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2014.01.001
  9. de Melo TP, Delgado A, Martins R, Lassila L, Garoushi S, Caldeira J, et al. Can Specular Gloss Measurements Predict the Effectiveness of Finishing/Polishing Protocols in Dental Polymers? A Systematic Review and Linear Mixed-effects Prediction Model. Oper Dent. 2022;47(3):E131-E151. PMID: 35776960 · DOI: 10.2341/21-027-LIT
  10. Souza DM, Santos BR, Carvalho MEF, Fedoce-Silva AS. Efficacy of Surface Sealant on Clinical Performance of Composite Resin Restorations: A Systematic Review. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2026. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 41924935 · DOI: 10.1111/jerd.70144
  11. Hickel R, Mesinger S, Opdam N, Loomans B, Frankenberger R, Cadenaro M, et al. Revised FDI criteria for evaluating direct and indirect dental restorations-recommendations for its clinical use, interpretation, and reporting. Clin Oral Investig. 2023;27(6):2573-2592. PMID: 36504246 · DOI: 10.1007/s00784-022-04814-1
  12. Dutra D, Pereira G, Kantorski KZ, Valandro LF, Zanatta FB. Does Finishing and Polishing of Restorative Materials Affect Bacterial Adhesion and Biofilm Formation? A Systematic Review. Oper Dent. 2018;43(1):E37-E52. PMID: 29284102 · DOI: 10.2341/17-073-L

Methods note

The first search was run in PubMed on 4 November 2026; on 5 November 2026 every source was re-verified against its PubMed record (NCBI E-utilities), the processing part of the S3 guideline was added, and the search for randomised trials comparing anterior polishing protocols was repeated the same day. After an external review the same day, the revised FDI criteria were added as a source for assessing the finished restoration and for reviews. After a second external review, a 2018 systematic review on the effect of finishing on roughness and of roughness on bacterial adhesion was added. The search covered finishing and polishing, surface roughness, gloss, water use, surface sealants and the threshold roughness for plaque retention. Systematic reviews, meta-analyses and guidelines were given priority. Author, title, journal, year and DOI of every source were checked against its PubMed record; findings were taken from abstracts only, and full texts were not read. No product or brand names are given. This is not a systematic review; it was prepared from one database by one reader.

Author: Dr. Ferit Çiftçi · Dentist · Author page · Last updated: 5 November 2026

This text is not patient information. Treatment decisions are made after an examination and for each person individually.

Phone: +90 538 073 12 11