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...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
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 |