Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Environmental impacts from conventional and digital dental crown fabrication workflows: A comparative life cycle assessment.

Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials·2026
Same author

Generative AI: Opportunities, risks, and responsibilities for oral sciences.

JADA foundational science·2026
Same author

Show me "Bioactive!": Let's play the Feud.

JADA foundational science·2026
Same author

Bioactive dental materials: Developing, promising, confusing.

JADA foundational science·2026
Same author

Experts' Willingness to Restore With Direct Composite: Complexity, Cuspal Coverage, and Techniques.

The journal of adhesive dentistry·2026
Same author

The oral microbiome: The next frontier in systemic preventative healthcare?

JADA foundational science·2026

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Nov 18, 2025

Roughness Impact of Piezoelectric Dental Scaler on Two Distinct Flowable Composite Filling Materials
05:30

Roughness Impact of Piezoelectric Dental Scaler on Two Distinct Flowable Composite Filling Materials

Published on: January 10, 2025

895

Visually acceptable gloss threshold for resin composite and polishing systems.

Juliana B da Costa, Jack L Ferracane, Silvia Amaya-Pajares

    Journal of the American Dental Association (1939)
    |February 7, 2021
    PubMed
    Summary

    Dentists find a gloss value between 40 and 50 gloss units (GU) clinically acceptable for resin composites. Different polishing methods influenced the perceived acceptable gloss level.

    Keywords:
    Resin compositefinishing and polishingglossglossmeterpolishing systems

    More Related Videos

    Impact of Fabrication Techniques and Polishing Procedures on Surface Roughness of Denture Base Resins
    03:02

    Impact of Fabrication Techniques and Polishing Procedures on Surface Roughness of Denture Base Resins

    Published on: January 17, 2025

    696
    Shrinkage of Dental Composite in Simulated Cavity Measured with Digital Image Correlation
    08:45

    Shrinkage of Dental Composite in Simulated Cavity Measured with Digital Image Correlation

    Published on: July 21, 2014

    13.8K

    Related Experiment Videos

    Last Updated: Nov 18, 2025

    Roughness Impact of Piezoelectric Dental Scaler on Two Distinct Flowable Composite Filling Materials
    05:30

    Roughness Impact of Piezoelectric Dental Scaler on Two Distinct Flowable Composite Filling Materials

    Published on: January 10, 2025

    895
    Impact of Fabrication Techniques and Polishing Procedures on Surface Roughness of Denture Base Resins
    03:02

    Impact of Fabrication Techniques and Polishing Procedures on Surface Roughness of Denture Base Resins

    Published on: January 17, 2025

    696
    Shrinkage of Dental Composite in Simulated Cavity Measured with Digital Image Correlation
    08:45

    Shrinkage of Dental Composite in Simulated Cavity Measured with Digital Image Correlation

    Published on: July 21, 2014

    13.8K

    Area of Science:

    • Dental Materials Science
    • Esthetic Dentistry

    Background:

    • Assessing the surface gloss of resin composites is crucial for clinical acceptance.
    • Dentists' perceptions of gloss are key to determining acceptable aesthetic outcomes.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To compare dentists' perceptions of varying composite gloss levels.
    • To identify the specific gloss value (GU) considered clinically acceptable for dental composites.

    Main Methods:

    • Composite specimens were finished and polished using three distinct methods.
    • Surface gloss was measured in gloss units (GU) from 0 to 100.
    • Ten dentists ranked specimens by gloss and categorized them into acceptability groups.

    Main Results:

    • Machine-measured gloss strongly correlated with dentists' perceptions (r² ≥ 0.95).
    • No significant difference in gloss perception between metallurgical polishing and Enhance finisher/PoGo polisher (EP).
    • Slight differences in gloss perception were noted between commercial polishing systems.

    Conclusions:

    • A gloss range of 40–50 GU was consistently perceived as clinically acceptable by dentists.
    • The Sof-Lex (SLex) disks achieved clinical acceptability at a lower GU (40) compared to EP or metallurgical polishing (50 GU).