Cargando…

Evaluation of surface roughness of different restorative composites after polishing using atomic force microscopy

INTRODUCTION: Resin based composites are widely used aesthetic restorative materials in clinical restorative dentistry. The filler size and the percentage of fillers affects smooth surface, clinical durability, aesthetics, better optical properties, compatibility with natural enamel tissue, surface...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kumari, C Meena, Bhat, K Manohar, Bansal, Rahul
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4760015/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26957795
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.173200
_version_ 1782416830660345856
author Kumari, C Meena
Bhat, K Manohar
Bansal, Rahul
author_facet Kumari, C Meena
Bhat, K Manohar
Bansal, Rahul
author_sort Kumari, C Meena
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Resin based composites are widely used aesthetic restorative materials in clinical restorative dentistry. The filler size and the percentage of fillers affects smooth surface, clinical durability, aesthetics, better optical properties, compatibility with natural enamel tissue, surface gloss, and preventing the discoloration of the restoration. The finishing and polishing of tooth-coloured restorations are necessary clinical steps for better aesthetics and longevity of restored teeth. AIM: In this study nano composites were chosen, because these contain nano particles which provide better overall composites features, including the quality of polished surface. The aim of this study was to evaluate the surface roughness of different newer posterior composites. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Five commercially available posterior restorative composite were tested in this study. All the specimens were polished with shofu multi step polishing system. After polishing the samples were all analyzed by atomic force microscopy which is used to study surface topography and surface morphology of materials. RESULTS: The values of surface roughness of each specimen were statistically analyzed using Kruskal Wallis ANOVA, and Pair wise comparisons by Mann-Whitney U test setting the statistical significance at p ≤ 0.05. CONCLUSION: Tetric Evo Ceram, Z350 exhibited less surface roughness compared to Ever X, Clearfil Majesty and Sure fil SDR. There was no statistical difference between groups regarding surface rough ness between groups.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4760015
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47600152016-03-08 Evaluation of surface roughness of different restorative composites after polishing using atomic force microscopy Kumari, C Meena Bhat, K Manohar Bansal, Rahul J Conserv Dent Original Article INTRODUCTION: Resin based composites are widely used aesthetic restorative materials in clinical restorative dentistry. The filler size and the percentage of fillers affects smooth surface, clinical durability, aesthetics, better optical properties, compatibility with natural enamel tissue, surface gloss, and preventing the discoloration of the restoration. The finishing and polishing of tooth-coloured restorations are necessary clinical steps for better aesthetics and longevity of restored teeth. AIM: In this study nano composites were chosen, because these contain nano particles which provide better overall composites features, including the quality of polished surface. The aim of this study was to evaluate the surface roughness of different newer posterior composites. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Five commercially available posterior restorative composite were tested in this study. All the specimens were polished with shofu multi step polishing system. After polishing the samples were all analyzed by atomic force microscopy which is used to study surface topography and surface morphology of materials. RESULTS: The values of surface roughness of each specimen were statistically analyzed using Kruskal Wallis ANOVA, and Pair wise comparisons by Mann-Whitney U test setting the statistical significance at p ≤ 0.05. CONCLUSION: Tetric Evo Ceram, Z350 exhibited less surface roughness compared to Ever X, Clearfil Majesty and Sure fil SDR. There was no statistical difference between groups regarding surface rough ness between groups. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2016 /pmc/articles/PMC4760015/ /pubmed/26957795 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.173200 Text en Copyright: © Journal of Conservative Dentistry http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Kumari, C Meena
Bhat, K Manohar
Bansal, Rahul
Evaluation of surface roughness of different restorative composites after polishing using atomic force microscopy
title Evaluation of surface roughness of different restorative composites after polishing using atomic force microscopy
title_full Evaluation of surface roughness of different restorative composites after polishing using atomic force microscopy
title_fullStr Evaluation of surface roughness of different restorative composites after polishing using atomic force microscopy
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of surface roughness of different restorative composites after polishing using atomic force microscopy
title_short Evaluation of surface roughness of different restorative composites after polishing using atomic force microscopy
title_sort evaluation of surface roughness of different restorative composites after polishing using atomic force microscopy
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4760015/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26957795
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.173200
work_keys_str_mv AT kumaricmeena evaluationofsurfaceroughnessofdifferentrestorativecompositesafterpolishingusingatomicforcemicroscopy
AT bhatkmanohar evaluationofsurfaceroughnessofdifferentrestorativecompositesafterpolishingusingatomicforcemicroscopy
AT bansalrahul evaluationofsurfaceroughnessofdifferentrestorativecompositesafterpolishingusingatomicforcemicroscopy