Cargando…

The effect of different surface treatment techniques on the surface roughness of feldspathic porcelain

PURPOSE: This in vitro study compared the effect of five different techniques on the surface roughness of feldspathic porcelain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 100 feldspathic porcelain disk samples mounted in acrylic resin blocks were divided into five groups (n=20) according to type of surface treatment:...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Alakus Sabuncuoglu, Fidan, Erturk, Ergul
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Istanbul University Faculty of Dentisty 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5573508/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28955569
http://dx.doi.org/10.17096/jiufd.30632
_version_ 1783259678047731712
author Alakus Sabuncuoglu, Fidan
Erturk, Ergul
author_facet Alakus Sabuncuoglu, Fidan
Erturk, Ergul
author_sort Alakus Sabuncuoglu, Fidan
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: This in vitro study compared the effect of five different techniques on the surface roughness of feldspathic porcelain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 100 feldspathic porcelain disk samples mounted in acrylic resin blocks were divided into five groups (n=20) according to type of surface treatment: I, hydrofluoric acid (HFA); II, Deglazed surface porcelain treated with Neodymium:yttrium- aluminum-garnet (Nd:YAG) laser; III, Deglazed porcelain surface treated with Erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Er:YAG) laser; IV, Glazed porcelain surface treated with Neodymium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Nd:YAG) laser, V; Glazed porcelain surface treated with Erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Er:YAG) laser. The surface roughness of porcelain was measured with a noncontact optical profilometer. For each porcelain sample, two readings were taken across the sample, before porcelain surface treatment (T1) and after porcelain surface treatment (T2). The roughness parameter analyzed was the average roughness (Ra). Statistical analysis was performed using Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Wilcoxon signed rank test. RESULTS: Mean Ra values for each group were as follows: I, 12.64±073; II, 11.91±0.74; III, 11.76±0.59; IV, 3.82±0.65; V, 2.77±0.57. For all porcelain groups, the lowest Ra values were observed in Group V. The highest Ra values were observed for Group I, with a significant difference with the other groups. Kolmogorov–Smirnov showed significant differences among groups (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Surface treatment of porcelain with HFA resulted in significantly higher Ra than laser groups. Both Er:YAG laser or Nd:YAG laser on the deglaze porcelain surface can be recommended as viable treatment alternatives to acid etching.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5573508
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Istanbul University Faculty of Dentisty
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55735082017-09-27 The effect of different surface treatment techniques on the surface roughness of feldspathic porcelain Alakus Sabuncuoglu, Fidan Erturk, Ergul J Istanb Univ Fac Dent Articles PURPOSE: This in vitro study compared the effect of five different techniques on the surface roughness of feldspathic porcelain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 100 feldspathic porcelain disk samples mounted in acrylic resin blocks were divided into five groups (n=20) according to type of surface treatment: I, hydrofluoric acid (HFA); II, Deglazed surface porcelain treated with Neodymium:yttrium- aluminum-garnet (Nd:YAG) laser; III, Deglazed porcelain surface treated with Erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Er:YAG) laser; IV, Glazed porcelain surface treated with Neodymium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Nd:YAG) laser, V; Glazed porcelain surface treated with Erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Er:YAG) laser. The surface roughness of porcelain was measured with a noncontact optical profilometer. For each porcelain sample, two readings were taken across the sample, before porcelain surface treatment (T1) and after porcelain surface treatment (T2). The roughness parameter analyzed was the average roughness (Ra). Statistical analysis was performed using Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Wilcoxon signed rank test. RESULTS: Mean Ra values for each group were as follows: I, 12.64±073; II, 11.91±0.74; III, 11.76±0.59; IV, 3.82±0.65; V, 2.77±0.57. For all porcelain groups, the lowest Ra values were observed in Group V. The highest Ra values were observed for Group I, with a significant difference with the other groups. Kolmogorov–Smirnov showed significant differences among groups (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Surface treatment of porcelain with HFA resulted in significantly higher Ra than laser groups. Both Er:YAG laser or Nd:YAG laser on the deglaze porcelain surface can be recommended as viable treatment alternatives to acid etching. Istanbul University Faculty of Dentisty 2016-10-01 /pmc/articles/PMC5573508/ /pubmed/28955569 http://dx.doi.org/10.17096/jiufd.30632 Text en Copyright © 2016 Journal of Istanbul University Faculty of Dentistry This article is licensed under Creative Commons License Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) license ( (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) ). Users must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. Users may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the journal endorses its use. The material cannot be used for commercial purposes. If the user remixes, transforms, or builds upon the material, he/she may not distribute the modified material. No warranties are given. The license may not give the user all of the permissions necessary for his/her intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how the material can be used.
spellingShingle Articles
Alakus Sabuncuoglu, Fidan
Erturk, Ergul
The effect of different surface treatment techniques on the surface roughness of feldspathic porcelain
title The effect of different surface treatment techniques on the surface roughness of feldspathic porcelain
title_full The effect of different surface treatment techniques on the surface roughness of feldspathic porcelain
title_fullStr The effect of different surface treatment techniques on the surface roughness of feldspathic porcelain
title_full_unstemmed The effect of different surface treatment techniques on the surface roughness of feldspathic porcelain
title_short The effect of different surface treatment techniques on the surface roughness of feldspathic porcelain
title_sort effect of different surface treatment techniques on the surface roughness of feldspathic porcelain
topic Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5573508/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28955569
http://dx.doi.org/10.17096/jiufd.30632
work_keys_str_mv AT alakussabuncuoglufidan theeffectofdifferentsurfacetreatmenttechniquesonthesurfaceroughnessoffeldspathicporcelain
AT erturkergul theeffectofdifferentsurfacetreatmenttechniquesonthesurfaceroughnessoffeldspathicporcelain
AT alakussabuncuoglufidan effectofdifferentsurfacetreatmenttechniquesonthesurfaceroughnessoffeldspathicporcelain
AT erturkergul effectofdifferentsurfacetreatmenttechniquesonthesurfaceroughnessoffeldspathicporcelain