- All Journals
- Al-Qadisiyah University
- Basrah University
- Kirkuk University
- Mosul University
- The Iraqi Borad for Medical Specialization
- University of Anbar
- University of Technology
- Al Mustafa University
- Al-Zahraa University for Women
- Alnoor University
- Kunooz University
- Misan University
- Ninevah University
- Tikrit University
- University of Al-Hamdaniya
- University of Kerbala
The surface roughness of new fluoride releasing material after using three polishing protocols and storage in artificial saliva | ||
| Journal of baghdad college of dentistry | ||
| Article 1, Volume 25, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 21-26 | ||
| Author | ||
| Maha A. Habeeb | ||
| Abstract | ||
| Background: 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: A total of 40 Giomer and Tetric®N-Ceram 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 samples were divided into four groups according to surface treatment: Group A (control group):10 specimens received no surface polish and were subdivided into A1 (Giomer) and A2 (Tetric®N-Ceram). Group B: 10 specimens received polishing with Air polishing devise (APD) and were subdivided into B1 (Giomer) and B2 (Tetric®N-Ceram). Group C: 10 specimens received polishing with pumice and brush and were subdivided into C1 (Giomer) and C2 (Tetric®N-Ceram). Group D: 10 specimens were polished with pumice and rubber cup and were subdivided into D1 (Giomer) and D2 (Tetric®N-Ceram). Testing was done by means of profilometer and statistically analyzed using analysis of variance test (ANOVA), LSD and student t-test. Also samples were photographed by special orthoplane camera using light polarizing microscope. 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 when comparing Tetric subgroups according to 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 Tetric ceram 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 Tetric ceram although the difference was not significant. | ||
| Keywords | ||
| Surface Roughness; fluoride; Artificial saliva | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 186 PDF Download: 34 |
||