Cargando…

Evaluation of surface roughness of three different composite resins with three different polishing systems

AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the surface roughness of three composites with three different polishing systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Composite specimens were made from the Teflon mold with a standardized cavity size (6 mm diameter and 3 mm height). Group I — Filtek Z350XT (Nano cluste...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Abzal, Mohammed S, Rathakrishnan, Mensudar, Prakash, Venkatachalam, Vivekanandhan, Paramasivam, Subbiya, Arunajatesan, Sukumaran, Vridhachalam Ganapathy
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/PMC4815548/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27099426
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.178703
_version_ 1782424611901669376
author Abzal, Mohammed S
Rathakrishnan, Mensudar
Prakash, Venkatachalam
Vivekanandhan, Paramasivam
Subbiya, Arunajatesan
Sukumaran, Vridhachalam Ganapathy
author_facet Abzal, Mohammed S
Rathakrishnan, Mensudar
Prakash, Venkatachalam
Vivekanandhan, Paramasivam
Subbiya, Arunajatesan
Sukumaran, Vridhachalam Ganapathy
author_sort Abzal, Mohammed S
collection PubMed
description AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the surface roughness of three composites with three different polishing systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Composite specimens were made from the Teflon mold with a standardized cavity size (6 mm diameter and 3 mm height). Group I — Filtek Z350XT (Nano clusters), group II — T-Econom plus (Microhybrid), group III — G-aenial Flo (True Nano). The samples were cured for 30 s from both sides with the matrices in place. The 60 samples were divided into 3 groups (N = 20), which accounted for 40 surfaces, (n = 20 × 2 = 40) in each groups. Each group were subdivided into four subgroups based on the type polishing material, subgroup A — Control, subgroup B — Astrobrush, subgroup C — Astropol, and subgroup D — Soflex spiral wheel. The samples of all groups except group A (control) were finished and polished according to the manufacture's instruction. RESULTS: After polishing, the roughness (Ra) of the resin composite of all the specimens were measured using a profilometer. Soflex spiral wheel (group D) significantly had the least roughness (Ra) value as compared to the other groups. CONCLUSION: Among the three resin composites tested, G-aenial Flo exhibited least Ra value due to its reduced filler size and its uniform distribution.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4815548
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-48155482016-04-20 Evaluation of surface roughness of three different composite resins with three different polishing systems Abzal, Mohammed S Rathakrishnan, Mensudar Prakash, Venkatachalam Vivekanandhan, Paramasivam Subbiya, Arunajatesan Sukumaran, Vridhachalam Ganapathy J Conserv Dent Original Article AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the surface roughness of three composites with three different polishing systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Composite specimens were made from the Teflon mold with a standardized cavity size (6 mm diameter and 3 mm height). Group I — Filtek Z350XT (Nano clusters), group II — T-Econom plus (Microhybrid), group III — G-aenial Flo (True Nano). The samples were cured for 30 s from both sides with the matrices in place. The 60 samples were divided into 3 groups (N = 20), which accounted for 40 surfaces, (n = 20 × 2 = 40) in each groups. Each group were subdivided into four subgroups based on the type polishing material, subgroup A — Control, subgroup B — Astrobrush, subgroup C — Astropol, and subgroup D — Soflex spiral wheel. The samples of all groups except group A (control) were finished and polished according to the manufacture's instruction. RESULTS: After polishing, the roughness (Ra) of the resin composite of all the specimens were measured using a profilometer. Soflex spiral wheel (group D) significantly had the least roughness (Ra) value as compared to the other groups. CONCLUSION: Among the three resin composites tested, G-aenial Flo exhibited least Ra value due to its reduced filler size and its uniform distribution. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2016 /pmc/articles/PMC4815548/ /pubmed/27099426 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.178703 Text en Copyright: © 2016 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
Abzal, Mohammed S
Rathakrishnan, Mensudar
Prakash, Venkatachalam
Vivekanandhan, Paramasivam
Subbiya, Arunajatesan
Sukumaran, Vridhachalam Ganapathy
Evaluation of surface roughness of three different composite resins with three different polishing systems
title Evaluation of surface roughness of three different composite resins with three different polishing systems
title_full Evaluation of surface roughness of three different composite resins with three different polishing systems
title_fullStr Evaluation of surface roughness of three different composite resins with three different polishing systems
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of surface roughness of three different composite resins with three different polishing systems
title_short Evaluation of surface roughness of three different composite resins with three different polishing systems
title_sort evaluation of surface roughness of three different composite resins with three different polishing systems
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4815548/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27099426
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.178703
work_keys_str_mv AT abzalmohammeds evaluationofsurfaceroughnessofthreedifferentcompositeresinswiththreedifferentpolishingsystems
AT rathakrishnanmensudar evaluationofsurfaceroughnessofthreedifferentcompositeresinswiththreedifferentpolishingsystems
AT prakashvenkatachalam evaluationofsurfaceroughnessofthreedifferentcompositeresinswiththreedifferentpolishingsystems
AT vivekanandhanparamasivam evaluationofsurfaceroughnessofthreedifferentcompositeresinswiththreedifferentpolishingsystems
AT subbiyaarunajatesan evaluationofsurfaceroughnessofthreedifferentcompositeresinswiththreedifferentpolishingsystems
AT sukumaranvridhachalamganapathy evaluationofsurfaceroughnessofthreedifferentcompositeresinswiththreedifferentpolishingsystems