Evaluation The Surface Roughness of New Composite Materials After Using Different Polishing Methods | ||
| Al-Rafidain University College For Sciences | ||
| Article 1, Volume 0, Issue 34, August 2017, Pages 285-299 | ||
| Author | ||
| Haitham Dakhel | ||
| Abstract | ||
| Prophylaxis methods are used to mechanically remove plaque and stain from tooth surfaces; such methods give rise to loss of superficial structure and roughen the surface of composites as a result of their abrasive action. This study was done to assess the effect of three polishing systems on surface texture of new anterior composites after storage in artificial saliva. Materials and methods: Twenty samples of Giomer and twenty samples of B 90 (3M ESPE) composite discs of 12 mm internal diameter and 3mm height were prepared using a specially designed cylindrical mold and were stored in artificial saliva for one month and then the samples were divided into four groups according to surface treatment: Group A (control group):10 specimens received no surface polish and were subdivided into 5 samples of A1 Giomer and 5 samples of A2 B 90 composite. Group B: 10 specimens received polishing with Air polishing devise (APD) and were subdivided into 5 samples of B1 Giomer and 5 samples of B2 B 90 composite. Group C: 10 specimens received polishing with pumice and brush and were subdivided into 5 samples of C1 Giomer and 5 samples of C2 B 90 composite. Group D: 10 specimens were polished with pumice and rubber cup and were subdivided into 5 samples of D1 Giomer and 5 samples of D2 B 90 composite. Testing was done by means of profilometer and statistically analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) test, LSD and student t-test. Results: The results showed a highly statistical significant difference in surface roughness among Giomer subgroups P<0.05. Also there was a highly significant difference (P<0.05) among B 90 subgroups according to the type of surface treatment. Furthermore there was non-significant difference P>0.05 between groups according to the type of restorative material used. Conclusion: The use of prophylactic surface treatment significantly increased Giomer and B 90 surface roughness and the use of rotating brush has shown the roughest surface among all other types of prophylactic protocols also Giomer had shown more surface roughness than B 90 although the difference was not significant. | ||
| Keywords | ||
| Surface Roughness; fluoride | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 24 PDF Download: 7 |
||