SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 30 - Sayı: 4

THE EFFECT OF SURFACE COATING AGENT ON THE SURFACE ROUGHNESS OF RESTORATIVE MATERIALS EXPOSED TO ACIDULATED PHOSPHATE FLUORIDE

ASİDÜLE FOSFAT FLUORİD UYGULANAN RESTORATİF MATERYALLERİN YÜZEY PÜRÜZLÜLÜĞÜNE YÜZEY ÖRTÜCÜ AJANININ ETKİSİ

Gökçen Deniz BAYRAK
Elif YAMAN DOSDOĞRU
Dilek ÖZTÜRK
Yağmur YILDIRIM
Senem SELVİ KUVVETLİ
Pages
557–563
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)

However,surface coating was found to produce smoother surfaces.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim:The purposeof thisstudy was to assess the surface roughness of six different restorative materials when covered with surface coating agent prior to 1.23% acidulated phosphate fluoride gel application.Materials and methods:Six restorative materials (Fuji IX, Amalgomer CR, Dyract XP, Beautifil II, ACTIVA, Filtek Z250) were used in this study. 28 specimens were prepared from each material and randomly divided into 4 groups (n=7) according to surface treatment regimens.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The resultswere analyzedusinganalysis of variance (ANOVA), Newman Keuls and Tukey’s tests (p0.05).The control groupof Amalgomer CR showed greater surface roughness values thanthatof the group F (p=0.001).Group S produced significantly smoother surfaces than the group C for all restorative materials, except Dyract XP (p=0.001).Conclusion: 1.23% acidulated phosphate fluoride gel application did not promote a significant increase on the surfaceroughness of restorative materials whether or not surface coated.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:However,surface coating was found to produce smoother surfaces.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:28 specimens
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Aim:The purposeof thisstudy was to assess the surface roughness of six different restorative materials when covered with surface coating agent prior to 1.23% acidulated phosphate fluoride gel application.Materials and methods:Six restorative materials (Fuji IX, Amalgomer CR, Dyract XP, Beautifil II, ACTIVA, Filtek Z250) were used in this study. 28 specimens were prepared from each material and randomly divided into 4 groups (n=7) according to surface treatment regimens. Group C: control, no application, Group F: only acidulated phosphate fluoridegel application, Group S: only surface coating agent application, Group SF: acidulated phosphate fluoride gel application following the surface coating procedure.The surface roughness values for all specimens were measured using profilometer. The resultswere analyzedusinganalysis of variance (ANOVA), Newman Keuls and Tukey’s tests (p0.05).The control groupof Amalgomer CR showed greater surface roughness values thanthatof the group F (p=0.001).Group S produced significantly smoother surfaces than the group C for all restorative materials, except Dyract XP (p=0.001).Conclusion: 1.23% acidulated phosphate fluoride gel application did not promote a significant increase on the surfaceroughness of restorative materials whether or not surface coated. However,surface coating was found to produce smoother surfaces.

Özet

Amaç:Bu çalışmanın amacı, %1,23 asidüle fosfat fluorid jel uygulamasından önce yüzey örtücü ajanı ile kaplanan altı farklı restoratif materyalin yüzey pürüzlülüğünün değerlendirilmesidir.Gereç ve yöntem: Çalışmada altı restoratif materyal (Fuji IX, Amalgomer CR, Dyract XP, Beautifil II, ACTIVA, Filtek Z250) kullanıldı. Her bir materyalden 28 örnek hazırlandı ve yüzeye yapılan uygulamalara göre rastgele 4 gruba ayrıldı (n=7). Grup K: kontrol, herhangi bir uygulama yok, Grup F: sadece asidüle fosfat fluoridjel uygulaması, Grup S: sadece yüzey örtücü ajanıuygulaması, Grup SF:yüzey örtülemesinitakiben asidüle fosfat fluorid jel uygulaması. Tüm örneklerin yüzey pürüzlülükdeğerleri profilometreile belirlendi. Sonuçların analizi varyans analizi (ANOVA), Newman Keuls ve Tukey testi ile yapıldı (p0,05). Amalgomer CR’nin kontrolgrubu, F grubuna göre daha yüksek yüzey pürüzlülük değeri göstermiştir(p=0,001).Dyract XP dışındaki tüm restoratif materyallerde grup S, grup K’ya göre anlamlı derecede daha pürüzsüz yüzey değeri vermiştir(p=0,001).Sonuç:%1,23 asidüle fosfat fluorid jel uygulaması, yüzey örtücü uygulanmış ve uygulanmamış restoratif materyallerin yüzey pürüzlülük değerindeönemli bir artış sağlamamıştır. Ancak, yüzey örtücü uygulaması, materyallerin yüzey pürüzlülüğünü azaltmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

BAYRAK, G. D., DOSDOĞRU, E. Y., ÖZTÜRK, D., YILDIRIM, Y., KUVVETLİ, S. S. (2022). THE EFFECT OF SURFACE COATING AGENT ON THE SURFACE ROUGHNESS OF RESTORATIVE MATERIALS EXPOSED TO ACIDULATED PHOSPHATE FLUORIDE. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 30 - Sayı: 4, 557–563. https://ajindex.com/articles/451688

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Wiegand A, Buchalla W, Attin T. Review on fluoride-releasing restorative materials--fluoride release and uptake characteristics, antibacterial activity and influence on caries formation. Dent Mater 2007;23: 343-62
  2. Bonifácio CC, Werner A, Kleverlaan CJ. Coating glass-ionomer cements with a nanofilled resin. Acta Odontol Scand 2012;70: 471-7
  3. Davidson CL. Advances in glass-ionomer cements. J Appl Oral Sci 2006;14: 3-9
  4. Hewlett ER, Mount GJ. Glass ionomers in contemporary restorative dentistry--a clinical update. J Calif Dent Assoc 2003;31: 483-92
  5. Sangappa VM, Dhanya Kumar NM, Shivanna V. A spectrophotometric evaluation of effectiveness of surface protection for resin modified glass ionomer cement an in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2005;8: 15-23
  6. Mensudar R, Sukumaran VG. To evaluate the effect of surface coating on three different types glass ionomer restorations. Biomed Pharmacol J 2015;8: 445-9
  7. Diem VT, Tyas MJ, Hien CN, Phuong LH, Khanh ND. The effect of a nano-filled resin coating on the 3-year clinical performance of a conventional highviscosity glass-ionomer cement. Clin Oral Invest 2014;18: 753-9
  8. Catelan A, Briso AL, Sundfeld RH, Dos Santos PH. Effect of artificial aging on the roughness and microhardness of sealed composites. J Esthet Restor Dent 2010;22: 324-30
  9. Attar N. The effect of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface roughness of composite resin materials. J Contemp Dent Pract 2007;8: 27- 35
  10. Cilli R, de Mattos MC, Honorio HM, Rios D, de Araujo PA, Prakki A. The role of surface sealants in the roughness of composites after a simulated toothbrushing test. J Dent 2009;37: 970-7
  11. Tiwari S, Nandlal B. Effect of nano-filled surface coating agent on fluoride release from conventional glass ionomer cement: an in vitro trial. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2013;31: 91-5
  12. American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. Guideline on Caries-risk Assessment and Management for Infants, Children, and Adolescents. Pediatr Dent 2016;38: 142-9
  13. Gui Y, Zhao X, Li S, Tang L, Gong X. Fluoride release and recharge properties of six restorative materials. Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi 2015;50: 28-32
  14. Hasan AMHR, Sidhu SK, Nicholson JW. Fluoride release and uptake in enhanced bioactivity glass ionomer cement ("glass carbomer™") compared with conventional and resin-modified glass ionomer cements. J Appl Oral Sci 2019;27: e20180230
  15. Gill NC, Pathak A. Comparative evaluation of the effect of topical fluorides