Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1
Lecturer, Department of Operative, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt.
2
Lecturer, Department of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt.
3
Lecturer, Department of Dental Biomaterias, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt.
Abstract
Introduction: many new aesthetic restorative materials are used in clinical practice to obtain better polishability and wear resistance but their properties and the surface changes that occur after oral prophylaxis are still unknown.
Aim of the study: The present study aimed to evaluate the effects of two oral prophylaxes on the surface roughness of three different brands of aesthetic restorative materials.
Materials and methods: A total of 90 standardized specimens, were fabricated using a cylindrical plastic mold, 10 mm diameter × 2 mm depth, of three different restorative materials; resin modifiesd glassionomer (RMGIC) (Fuji Filling LC), bioactive ionic resin(Activa Bioactive) and nanofilled resin composite (Filtek™ Z350 XT) 30 specimens of each restorative material, All Specimens were polished with a series of aluminum oxide polishing discs (Sof-Lex). specimens of each restorative materials were randomly divided into three subgroups of 10 specimens according to the treatment it will receive. Group I received no treatment. Group II was polished with rubber cup and proKlene Prophylaxis Paste . Group III was polished with AIRFLOW® Prophylaxis. Surface roughness measurements were performed using ESEM (QUANTA 200, FEI CO., OR, USA), then, data were analyzed by two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and mean values were compared by Tukey’s honestly significant difference test (α = 0.05).
Results: It was found that surface roughness values were changed significantly between the control, 1st and 2nd evaluations (p < 0.05) for each material and between the two prophylactic methods and control (p < 0.05), showing that the change in surface roughness depended on the type of restorative material and prophylactic treatment. Roughness was significantly higher after the pumice and rubber cup (p < 0.05).
Conclusion: Prophylaxis using pumice and rubber cup showed significantly the highest surface roughness of restorative material. The nanofilled composite was the least to be affected.
Keywords
)
View on SCiNiTO