SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ankara Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi / 2002 / Cilt: 29 - Sayı: 3

The surface roughness values of different composite resins against various liquids

Farklı kompozit rezinlerin çeşitli likitler karşısındaki yüzey pürüzlülük değerleri

Adil NALÇACI
Arzu MÜJDECİ
Pages
251–256
Publication Date
2022-10-10
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The best surface roughness values recorded in Clearfil APX groups, the least surface roughness values recorded in Tetric Flow groups in all test conditions.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Restorative materials are exposed various effects to intraoral environment.
📊
Key Findings & Data:From the each of composite resins (Tetric Flow, Clearfil APX Surefil, Definite) 60 clinders (2 mm height and 6 mm diameter) were prepared using by teflon molds.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The best surface roughness values recorded in Clearfil APX groups, the least surface roughness values recorded in Tetric Flow groups in all test conditions.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Restorative materials are exposed various effects to intraoral environment. In this study, the purpose was to evaluate the surface roughness of various composite resins against different liquids. From the each of composite resins (Tetric Flow, Clearfil APX Surefil, Definite) 60 clinders (2 mm height and 6 mm diameter) were prepared using by teflon molds. Then the samples separated into 6 groups and placed in distilled water, % 25 and 50 ethanol, lactic acid, citric acid and heptane for a week. Samples taken from the liquids and three measurements for top of each samples were taken with the surface roughness tester (Mitutoyo Corp., Tokyo, Japan). Results were evaluated statistically using by Analysis of Variance and Duncan test. It was observed that the surface roughness of composite resins were affected with liquids. The best surface roughness values recorded in Clearfil APX groups, the least surface roughness values recorded in Tetric Flow groups in all test conditions.

Özet

Restoratif materyaller intraoral çevrede çeşitli etkilere maruz kalırlar. Bu çalışmanın amacı çeşitli kompozit rezinlerin farklı likitler karşısındaki yüzey pürüzlülüklerini değerlendirmektir.Teflon kalıplar kullanılarak her bir kompozit rezine ait (Tetric Flow, Clearfil APX, Surefil, Definite) 2 mm yükseklik ve 6 mm çapında silindirik 60'ar örnek elde edildi. Daha sonra örnekler 6'şar gruba ayrılarak, 1 hafta süresince distile su, %25 ve %50 etanol, laktik asit, sitrik asit ve heptanda bekletildiler. Örnekler likitlerden çıkarıldıktan 1 sonra her örneğin üst yüzeyinden 3'er ölçüm alındı. Elde edilen ortalama Ra değerleri istatistiksel olarak Varyans analizi ve Duncan testi ile değerlendirildi. Likitlerin kompozit rezinlerin yüzey pürüzlülüğünü etkilediği görüldü. Tüm test şartlarında en düzgün yüzeyler Clearfil APX, en pürüzlü yüzeyler Tetric Flow gruplarında elde edildi.

🔖

Cite This Article

NALÇACI, A., MÜJDECİ, A. (2022). The surface roughness values of different composite resins against various liquids. Ankara Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 29 - Sayı: 3, 251–256. https://ajindex.com/articles/442273

References (18)

  1. Weitman RT, Eames VB. Plaque accumulation on composite surface after various finishing procedures. JADA 1975; 91:101-6
  2. Toledano M, De La Tore FJ, Osorio R. Evaluation of two polishing methods for resin composites. Am J Dent 1994; 7:328-30
  3. Chan KC, Fuler JL, Hormati AA. The ability of foods to stain two composite resins. J Prosthet Dent 1980; 43:542-5
  4. Laraba DC. Influence of a composite resin restoration on the gingiva. J Prosthet Dent 1972; 28:402-4
  5. Pratten DH, Johnson GH. An evaluation of finishing instruments for an anterior and a posterior composite. J Prosthet Dent 1988; 60:154-8
  6. Staddard JW, Johnson GH. An evaluation of polishing agents for composite resins. J Prosthet Dent 1991; 65:491-5
  7. Staley C. Kopel H. Smoothness of composite restorations polished by various abrasives: a comparison by scanning electron microscopy. Oper Dent 1979; 4: 140-8
  8. Abu-Bakr N, Han L, Okamoto A, Iwaku M. Changes in the mechanical properties and surface texture of compomer immersed in various media. J Prosthet Dent 2000; 84: 444-52
  9. Manhart J, Kunzelmann KH, Chen HY, Hickel R. Mechanical properties and wear behaviour of light-cured packable composite resins. Dent Mater 2000; 16: 33-40
  10. Yap AUJ, Low JS, Ong LFKL. Effect of food simulating liquids on surface characteristics of composite and polyacid modified composite restoratives. Oper Dent 2000; 25: 170-6
  11. McKinney JE, Wu W. Chemical softening and wear of dental composites. J Dent Res 1985; 64:1326-58
  12. Wu W, McKinney JE. Influnce of chemicals on wear of dental composites. J Dent Res 1982;6: 1180-84
  13. Bowen RL. Properties of silica reinforced polymer for dental restorations. JADA 1963; 57-64
  14. Willems G, Lambrechts P, Braem M, Celis JP, Vanherle G. A classification of dental composites according to their morphological and mechanical characteristics. Dent Mater 1992; 8: 310-9
  15. Bayne SC, Thompson JY, Swift EJ, Stamatiades P, Wilkerson M. A characterization of first-generation flowable composites. JADA 1998; 129:567-77
  16. Roeder LB, Tate WH, Powers JM. Effect of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface roughness of packable composites. Oper Dent 2000; 25: 534-43
  17. Sturdevant CM, Robenson TM, Heymann HO, Sturdevant JR. The art and science of operative dentistry. 1995; Mosby year book Inc. St. Louis, Chapter 6: 252-263
  18. Ulusoy N, Bağış YH. Kompozit dolgularda farklı bitirme yöntemlerinin değerlendirilmesi: Bitirme yöntemlerinin hibrid kompozitlere etkisi. Bö