Dergiler / European Oral Research / 2020 / Cilt: 54 - Sayı: 1

Effect of surface sealant on the surface roughness of different composites and evaluation of their microhardness

Sayfa
1–8
Yayın Tarihi
2020-01-23
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

The smoothest surfaces were obtained for all experimental groups using the BisCover LV resin after the polishing step, Herculite XRV Ultra showed lower average roughness values than the other materials.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Purpose The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of a surface sealant on the surface roughness of different composites and compare their microhardness values.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Materials and Methods Sixty disc-shaped specimens were prepared and assigned to 6 groups (n =10).
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:The smoothest surfaces were obtained for all experimental groups using the BisCover LV resin after the polishing step, Herculite XRV Ultra showed lower average roughness values than the other materials.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Roughness · microhardness · resin composite

Abstract

Purpose The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of a surface sealant on the surface roughness of different composites and compare their microhardness values. Materials and Methods Sixty disc-shaped specimens were prepared and assigned to 6 groups (n =10). Groups were prepared as follows; Group 1 (Herculite XRV Ultra), Group 2 (Beautifil Bulk Restorative) and Group 3 (Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative). Groups 4, 5, and 6 were prepared by applying a surface sealant (BisCover LV) on the specimens in groups 1, 2 and 3. Surface hardness of the discs in group 1, 2, and 3 and surface roughness of the discs in all groups were measured using the Vickers hardness test and a profilometer, respectively. One-way ANOVA was used to test for differences among the groups. Results No significant differences were observed in the microhardness and roughness between the experimental and control groups for each restorative materials. Group 3 showed the highest surface hardness and group 4 showed the lowest surface roughness values. Conclusion Using the BisCover LV resin after the polishing step has no significant effect on the surface roughness. The highest hardness values were obtained for the Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative after the polishing step. The smoothest surfaces were obtained for all experimental groups using the BisCover LV resin after the polishing step, Herculite XRV Ultra showed lower average roughness values than the other materials.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

GURBUZ, O., CILINGIR, A., DIKMEN, B., ÖZSOY, A., EREN, M. M. (2020). Effect of surface sealant on the surface roughness of different composites and evaluation of their microhardness. European Oral Research, Cilt: 54 - Sayı: 1, 1–8. https://ajindex.com/articles/243097

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (13)

  1. Abbasi M, Moradi Z, Mirzaei M, Kharazifard MJ, Rezaei S. Polymerization Shrinkage of Five Bulk-Fill Composite Resins in Comparison with a Conventional Composite Resin. J Dent (Tehran) 2018
  2. 15(6):365-74. [CrossRef] 2. Malek Afzali B, Ghasemi A, Mirani A, Abdolazimi Z, Akbarzade Baghban A, Kharazifard MJ. Effect of Ingested Liquids on Color Change of Composite Resins. J Dent (Tehran) 2015
  3. 12(8):577-84. 3. Son SA, Park JK, Seo DG, Ko CC, Kwon YH. How light attenuation and filler content affect the microhardness and polymerization shrinkage and translucency of bulk-fill composites? Clin Oral Investig 2017
  4. 21(2): 559-65. [CrossRef] 4. Yap AU, Yap SH, Teo CK, Ng JJ. Finishing/polishing of composite and compomer restoratives: effectiveness of one-step systems. Oper Dent 2004
  5. Yap AU, Tan S, Teh TY. The effect of polishing systems on microleakage of tooth coloured restoratives: part 1. Conventional and resin-modified glass-ionomer cements. J Oral Rehabil 2000
  6. [CrossRef] 6. Abuzar MA, Bellur S, Duong N, Kim BB, LuP,Palfreyman N,etal. Evaluating surface roughness of a polyamide denture base material in comparison with poly (methyl methacrylate). J Oral Sci 2010
  7. [CrossRef] 7. Chatzivasileiou K, Emmanouil I,Kotsiomiti E,Pissiotis A. Polishing of denture base acrylic resin with chairside polishing kits: an SEM and surface roughness study. Int J Prosthodont 2013
  8. [CrossRef] 8. Sarikaya I, Güler AU. Effects of different polishing techniques on the surface roughness of dental porcelains. J Appl Oral Sci 2010
  9. [CrossRef] 9. Giacomelli L, Derchi G, Frustaci A, Bruno O, Covani U, Barone A,etal. Surface roughness of commercial composites after different polishing protocols: an analysis with atomic force microscopy. Open Dent J 2010
  10. [CrossRef] 10. Lu H, Roeder LB, Lei L, Powers JM. Effect of surface roughness on stain resistance of dental resin composites. J Esthet and Restor Dent 2005
  11. [CrossRef] 11. Korkmaz Y, Ozel E, Attar N, Aksoy G. The influence of one-step polishing systems on the surface roughness and microhardness of nanocomposites. Oper Dent 2008
  12. [CrossRef] 12. 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 Mat 1997
  13. [CrossRef] 13. Reis AF, Giannini M, Lovadino JR, dos Santos Dias CT. The effect of six polishing systems on the surface