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...
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/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 |