Evaluation and Comparison of the Surface Roughness and Porosity of Different Provisional Restorative Materials: An in vitro Study

2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-45
Author(s):  
G Vinaya Kumar ◽  
Renuka Devi ◽  
Nimmy Anto
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Statistical Analysis ◽  
Minimal Surface ◽  
Surface Area ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Acrylic Resin ◽  
Anova Test ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Dial Indicator

ABSTRACT Aim The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the surface roughness and porosity of different provisional restorative materials. Materials and methods Provisional restorative materials were divided into following three groups: Dental products of india (DPI), Protemp, Tempofit. For each group, wax block with 20 × 10 × 3 mm was made for making vinyl polysiloxane impression material to give 12 samples in each group of three different provisional restorative materials. The acrylic resin was inserted into the silicon impression mold. A total of 12 specimens of one material were obtained. The specimens were finished with the help of lathe using a sequence of grit sand paper. The surface roughness was verified with the help of a micron dial indicator. To facilitate the porosity readings, the specimens were immersed in dye for 2 hours. The number of pores in each area was determined with a stereomicroscope with magnification 1× 50× to check the porosity of three different provisional restorative materials. Values were subjected to statistical analysis. Results Analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was used to compare between Tempofit, Protemp, and DPI. The results obtained indicated that surface roughness of Protemp was least compared with Tempofit and DPI. The ANOVA test was used to check surface area of porosities in each provisional material, followed by Kruskal–Wallis test and Mann–Whitney test (highly significant) (p < 0.001). The results obtained indicate that Protemp material showed the least number of porosities and minimal surface roughness followed by Tempofit and DPI. Henceforth, it can be concluded that among the three tested materials, Protemp was the best material which can be used for provisional restorations. Conclusion Surface roughness and porosity were compared among Protemp, Tempofit, and DPI material; the best results were obtained with the use of Protemp material which had shown the least number of porosities and minimal surface roughness. How to cite this article Kumar GV, Devi R, Anto N. Evaluation and Comparison of the Surface Roughness and Porosity of Different Provisional Restorative Materials: An in vitro Study. CODS J Dent 2016;8(1):39-45.

scholarly journals The behaviour of composites, glass ionomers and compomers in erosive conditions – in vitro study

2014 ◽  
Vol 60 (5) ◽  
pp. 200-203
Author(s):  
Andreea Borş ◽  
Cristina Molnar-Varlam ◽  
Melinda Székely
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Wear Resistance ◽  
Erosive Wear ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Vitro Study ◽  
Initial Surface ◽  
Dental Filling ◽  
Filling Materials ◽  
Restorative Materials

Abstract Objective: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the influence of erosive conditions on the wear resistance of aesthetic direct restorative materials. Methods: Six dental filling materials were tested: two composites (Filtek Z550 and X-tra fil), two compomers (Dyract Extra and Twinky Star) and two glass ionomers (Ketac Molar and Fuji II LC). Twenty disks (10mm×2mm) of each material were prepared (n=120) and kept in artificial saliva at 37˚C for 24 hours. Specimens were cycled in acidic soft drink (Coca-Cola) 5×/day, for 5’, over 30 days. Initial surface roughness ISR (Ra-μm) and final surface roughness FSR were measured using a profilometer. The wear rate was calculated as difference of final minus the initial roughness (ΔSR=FSR-ISR). For statistical analysis t-test and one-way ANOVA test were used by GraphPad Prism version 5.03 statistical software. The level of significance was set at p<0.05. Results: The erosive wear rates (mean±SD, μm) after exposure to acidic beverage were: 0.30±0.03 (Ketac Molar), 0.28±0.04 (Fuji II LC), 0.27±0.00 (Filtek Z550), 0.23±0.01 (X-tra fil), 0.20±0.00 (Twinky Star) and 0.14±0.01 Dyract Extra, respectively. There were significant differences between the tested materials (p<0.05). Conclusions: Dental filling materials had different behaviour under the same erosive condition, however all investigated aesthetic restorative materials showed surface degradation. These findings suggest that erosive wear resistance of tooth coloured restoratives could influence their longevity in intraoral acidic conditions. Acknowledgements: The study was supported by the Internal Research Grant no. 5/30.01.2013 of the University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Tirgu Mureş.

scholarly journals Effect of Different Dentifrices on the Surface Roughness of Acrylic Resins: An in vitro Study

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (8) ◽  
pp. 679-682
Author(s):  
Nitin Gautam ◽  
Aditi Sharma ◽  
Unjum Bashir ◽  
Sisir Rapolu ◽  
Nallamilli Mamatha ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Positive Association ◽  
Acrylic Resin ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Distilled Water ◽  
Acrylic Resins ◽  
Type Size ◽  
Utmost Care

ABSTRACT Aim This study was undertaken to study the effect of three most commonly used dentifrices for denture cleaning and to find out any positive association between number of strokes by toothbrush and surface roughness of acrylic resin. Materials and methods About 40 acrylic rectangular blocks with high finish were polished until surface roughness was calculated as 0 µm. The materials tested were distilled water as a control group, Patanjali Dant Kanti, Colgate Total Cream, and Cleansodent as dentifrices. Stroking was done with dentifrices, and surface roughness readings were recorded at 1,000, 9,000, and 18,000 strokes. Results Patanjali Dant Kanti was found to have maximum abrasive potential followed by Colgate Total Cream, followed by Cleansodent and least by distilled water. Conclusion Surface roughness was found to be directly proportional to the type, size, and fineness of the abrasive component used; the professional denture cleanser (Cleansodent) has less abrasive potential than the regular toothpastes. Among those tested, the highest abrasive potential was found in Patanjali Dant Kanti and lowest by Cleansodent (denture cleanser). Clinical significance The patient as well as dentist should choose the dentifrice with utmost care noting the size and type of abrasives used. Washing the dentures normally with water without toothbrush daily and cleaning of dentures once in 10 to 15 days with a soft toothbrush and professional denture cleanser should be the line of maintenance of dentures. How to cite this article Gautam N, Sharma A, Bashir U, Rapolu S, Mamatha N, Sravani S. Effect of Different Dentifrices on the Surface Roughness of Acrylic Resins: An in vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2017;18(8):679-682.

scholarly journals A Comparison Of Surface Roughness Values of Various Restorative Materials Immersed in Pedodontic Pre- and Probiotics

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 14389-14402
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Artificial Saliva ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
High Viscosity ◽  
Inorganic Filler ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Sem Images ◽  
Restorative Materials

The present in vitro study aims to evaluate pre- and probiotic liquids' effect on surface roughness values of restorative materials after one month of immersion. 360 disc-shaped samples (5mm x 2mm) were prepared from two types of glass-ionomer cements (GIC), a resin-modified GIC, a compomer, three bulk-fill composites, and one microhybrid composite. After the surfaces were polished, samples were divided into three groups (n = 15) and immersed for 10 minutes daily for one month in either a probiotic sachet, kefir (prebiotic), or artificial saliva. After that, the surface roughness values were measured by a profilometer. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) evaluations of one sample from tested materials were also added. Statistical data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Bonferroni–Dunn tests. One of the GIC materials had significantly rougher surfaces in the probiotic sachet, followed by the compomer (p < 0.05). The compomer showed the roughest surfaces after immersion in kefir, followed by the microhybrid composite (Z250). Probiotic sachets formed rougher surfaces than kefir among samples. SEM images revealed the inorganic filler structures and microcracks on the surfaces. A high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement, Equia Fil Forte, and other composite-based materials tested in the present study can be used in pediatric patients who use pre- and probiotic supplements.

scholarly journals Influence of Remineralizing Agents on the Surface Roughness of Eroded Dental Enamel: in Vitro Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 127-130
Author(s):  
Cesar Penazzo Lepri ◽  
Rayssa Prado Macedo ◽  
Vanessa Ferreira Marra ◽  
Gabriella Rodovalho Paiva ◽  
Denise Tornavoi de Castro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Surface Area ◽  
Tooth Enamel ◽  
Dental Enamel ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Laser Scanning Microscopy ◽  
Vitro Study ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Kolmogorov Smirnov

The objective of this in vitro study was to evaluate the influence of remineralizing agents on the surface roughness of eroded tooth enamel. Forty incisive bovines were selected and sectioned to obtain specimens of 4mm X 4mm, resulting in a surface area of 16,00mm², with a thickness of 2.50mm. The specimens were immersed in lemon juice, twice a day, over 5 days, and randomly divided into the following 4 groups: G1 = No treatment; G2 = 1.23% APF; G3 = Fluoride Varnish 5% and G4 = Regenerated. The surface roughness of the specimens was analyzed by means of confocal laser scanning microscopy. The obtained data were submitted to ANOVA after attend the homogeneity (Levene´s) and normality tests (Kolmogorov-Smirnov). All tests were statistically significant at 5% (α=0.05). The results showed that there was no statistically significant difference on the enamel roughness surface area between groups in the experimental region and the founded values were higher at the experimental when compared to the control region, however, without differences between the groups in each region. It was concluded that the remineralizing agents were not able to reduce the surface roughness of the studied groups.   Keywords: Tooth Erosion. Dental Enamel. Fluorine. Tooth Remineralization. Resumo O objetivo deste estudo in vitro foi avaliar a influência de agentes remineralizantes na rugosidade da superficial do esmalte dental erodido. Quarenta bovinos incisivos foram selecionados e seccionados para obter espécimes de 4 mm x 4 mm, resultando em uma área superficial de 16,00 mm², com espessura de 2,50 mm. As amostras foram imersas em suco de limão, duas vezes ao dia, durante 5 dias, e divididas aleatoriamente nos 4 grupos seguintes: G1 = Sem tratamento; G2 = Flúor gel 1,23%; G3 = Verniz fluoretado 5% e G4 =Regenerate. A rugosidade superficial das amostras foi analisada por microscopia confocal de varredura a laser. Os dados obtidos foram submetidos à ANOVA após os testes de homogeneidade (Levene) e normalidade (Kolmogorov-Smirnov). Todos os testes foram estatisticamente significantes a 5% (α = 0,05). Os resultados mostraram que não houve diferença estatisticamente significante na rugosidade de área do esmalte entre os grupos na região experimental e os valores encontrados foram maiores na experimental quando comparados à região controle, no entanto, sem diferenças entre os grupos em cada região. Concluiu-se que os remineralizantes não foram capazes de reduzir a rugosidade da superfície dos grupos estudados. Palavras-chave: Erosão Dentária. Esmalte dentário. Flúor. Remineralização Dentária.

scholarly journals Effect Of 20% Bleaching Agent on Surface Roughness of Restorative Materials-An In Vitro Study

2014 ◽  
Vol 13 (10) ◽  
pp. 42-47
Author(s):  
Dr. Aditya vardhan Patidar ◽  
◽  
Dr. Manoj Chandak ◽  
Dr. Bernice Thomas ◽  
Dr. kaustubh Khatod ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Vitro Study ◽  
Bleaching Agent ◽  
Restorative Materials
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document