You are here

Home » Content

Yaşlandırma prosedürünün farklı restoratif materyallerin yüzey pürüzlülüğü üzerine etkisi

Effect of aging procedure on surface roughness of different restorative materials

Journal Name:

  • Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2010

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
Objective: The aim of the study was to examine the effect of aging procedure, applied on different restorative materials, on surface roughness. Method: Three different compomer resins (Compoglass-F / Ivoclar Vivadent, Glasiosite /Voco, Dyract-Extra / Dentsply De Trey), one nanohybrid composite resin (Grandio / Voco), one nanocomposite resin (Filtek-Supreme / 3M ESPE) and one ormocer resin (Admira / Voco) materials were used in the study. Samples were placed in “7mm x 1mm” sized cylindirical teflon molds. All samples were polymerized with a halogen light unit (n=7, totally 42 samples) (Color:A2). One-year aging procedure was applied for all samples with an aging device (Weathering Machine / ATLAS) with “temperature, moisture and light” loops. The surface roughness of samples were calculated with a Profilometer device (Surface Profilometer / Mitutoyo) before and after aging procedure.For statistical anaylses two-way ANOVA and Duncan multiple comparison tests were used, p<0,05 value was regarded significant. Results: No statistical difference was found between groups due to aging procedure (p>0,05). The highest values were obtained from samples of Admira ormocer material and the lowest values were found from samples of Compoglass-F compomer material in the study. Statistical difference was observed regarding to surface roughness of materials (p<0,05). Discussion: Different resine materials may exhibite statistically significant surface roughness values, however aging procedure has no effect on this phenomena.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Amaç: Bu çalışmadaki amaç, farklı tiplerdeki restoratif materyaller üzerine uygulanan yaşlandırma prosedürünün, materyallerde meydana gelen yüzey pürüzlülüğü üzerine etkisinin incelenmesidir. Yöntem: Çalışmada, 3 farklı kompomer rezin (Compoglass-F / Ivoclar Vivadent, Glasiosite / Voco, Dyract-Extra / Dentsply De Trey ), 1 adet nanohibrit kompozit rezin (Grandio / Voco), 1 adet nanokompozit (Filtek-Supreme / 3M ESPE) ve 1 ormoser rezin (Admira / Voco) materyal kullanıldı. Örnekler, “7mm x 1mm” ebatlarındaki silindirik şekilli teflon kalıplara yerleştirildi ve ardından tüm örnekler halojen ışık kaynağıyla polimerize edildi (n=7, toplam 42 örnek) (Renk: A2). Tüm örneklere, “ısı, nem ve ışık döngüleri” ile in-vitro olarak yaşlanma prosedürü uygulayan bir yaşlandırma cihazı (Weathering Machine / ATLAS) yardımı ile 1-yıllık yaşlanma prosedürü uygulandı. Örneklerin yüzey pürüzlülüğü değerleri bir profilometre cihazı (Surface Profilometer / Mitutoyo) ile yaşlandırma prosedüründen önce ve sonra hesaplandı. İstatistiksel analiz için iki-yönlü ANOVA ve Duncan çoklu karşılaştırma testi kullanıldı, p<0,05 anlamlı kabul edildi. Sonuçlar: Yaşlandırma prosedürü açısından, gruplar arasında yüzey pürüzlülüğü bakımından istatistiksel farklılık bulunmadı (p>0,05). Çalışmada, materyaller arasında en fazla yüzey pürüzlülüğü değerlerini, Admira ormoser rezin restoratif materyalinden oluşan örnekler gösterdi (p<0,05). Çalışmadaki en düşük yüzey pürüzlülüğü değerlerine ise Compoglass-F kompomer rezin restoratif materyalinde rastlandı (p>0,05). Yüzey pürüzlülüğü açısından, materyaller arasında istatistiksel farklılık gözlendi (p<0,05). TartıĢma: Farklı rezin materyallerin yüzey pürüzlülük değerleri arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark bulunabilir, ancak yaşlandırma prosedürünün bu değerler üzerinde etkisi yoktur.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-yaslandirma-prosedurunun-farkli-restoratif-materyallerin-yuzey-puruzlulugu-uzerine-etkisi.pdf
  • 2
39-48
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

1. Lu H, Roeder LB, Lei L, et al. Effect of surface roughness on stain resistance of dental resin composites. J Esthet Restor Dent 2005;17:102-108.
2. Lee YK, Lu H, Oguri M, et al. Changes in gloss after simulated generalized wear of composite resin. J Prosthet Dent 2005;94:370-376.
3. Lappalainen R, Yli-Urpo A, Seppa L. Wear of dental restorative and prosthetic materials in vitro. Dent Mater 1989;5:35-37.
4. Matsumura H, Leinfelder KF. Localized three-body wear of six types of composite resin veneering materials. J Prosthet Dent 1993;70:207-213.
5. Matsumura H, Leinfelder KF. Effect of an adhesive primer on the integrity of occlusal veneer-metal interface and wear of composite resin veneered restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1993;70:296-299.
6. Matsumura H, Leinfelder KF. Three body wear of four types of light-activated composite resin veneering materials. Quintessence Int 1994;25:425-430.
7. Wassel RW, McCabe JF, Walls AW. Wear characteristics in a two-body wear test. Dent Mater 1994;10:269-274.
8. Tanoue N, Matsumura H, Atsuta M. Wear and surface roughness of current prosthetic composites after toothbrush/dentifrice abrasion. J Prosthet Dent 2000;84:93-96.
9. Goldstein GR, Lerner T. The effect of toothbrushing on a hybrid composite resin. J Prosthet Dent 1991;66:498-500.
10. Mandikos MN, McGivney GP, Davis E, et al. A comparison of the wear resistance and hardness of indirect composite resins. J Prosthet Dent 2001;85:386-395.
11. Schmidlin PR, Sener B, Lutz F. Cleaning and polishing efficacy of abrasive-bristle brushes and a prophylaxis paste on resin composite material in vitro. Quintessence Int 2002;33:691-699.
12. Stanford WB, Fan PL, Wozniak WT et al. Effect of finishing on color and gloss of composites with different fillers. J Am Dent Assoc 1985;110:211-213.
13. Heintze SD, Forjanic M, Rousson V. Surface roughness and gloss of dental materials as a function of force and polishing time in vitro. Dent Mater 2006,22:146-165.
14. Chung SM, Yap AUJ. Effects of surface finish on indentation modulus and hardness of dental composite restoratives. Dent Mater 2005;21:1008-1016.
15. Kawai K, Leinfelder KF. In vitro evaluation of OCA wear resistance of posterior composites. Dent Mater 1995;11:256-251.
16. Bollen CM, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the treshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature. Dent Mater 1997;13:258-269.
17. Willems K, Lambrechts P, Braem M, et al. The surface roughness of enamel-to-enamel contact areas compared with the intrinsic roughness of dental resin composites. J Dent Res 1991;70:1299-1305.
18. Jones CS, Billington RW, Pearson GJ. The in vivo perception of roughness of restorations. Br Dent J 2004;196:42-45.
19. Ryge G. Clinical criteria. Int Dent J. 1980;30:347-358.
20. Welbury RR, Shaw AJ, Murray JJ, et al. Clinical evaluation of paired compomer and glass ionomer restorations in primary molars: final results after 42 months. Br Dent J. 2000;189:93-97.
21. Paravina RD, Ontiveros JC, Powers JM. Accelerated aging effects on color and translucency of bleaching-shade composites. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2004;16:117-126.
22. Douglas RD. Color stability of new-generation indirect resins for prosthodontic application. J Prosthet Dent 2000;83:166-170.
23. Lee YK, Lim BS, Kim CW, et al. Color characteristics of low-chroma and high-translusence dental resin composites by different measuring modes. J Biomed Mater Res (Appl Biomater) 2001;58:613-621.
24. Lee YK, Lim BS, Rhee SH, et al. Changes of optical properties of dental nano-filled resin composites after curing and thermocycling. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater 2004;71B:16-21.
25. Lee YK, Powers JM. Discoloration of dental resin composites after immersion in a series of organic and chemical solutions. Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater 2005;73B:361-367.
26. Choi MS, Lee YK, Lim BS, et al. Changes in color and translucency of porcelain-repairing resin composites after thermocycling. Appl Biomater 2006;78B:1-6.
27. Neme AL, Evans DB, Maxson BB. Evaluation of dental adhesive systems with amalgam and resin composite restorations: comparison of microleakage and bond strength results. Oper Dent 2000;25:512-519.
28. Manhart J, Chen HY, Mehl A, et al. Marginal quality and microleakage of adhesive class V restorations. J Dent 2001;29:123-130.
29. Asmussen E. An accelerated test for color stability of restoartive resins. Acta Odontol Scand 1981;39:329-332.
30. Peutzfeldt A, Asmussen E. Color stability of three composite resins used in the inlay/onlay technique. Scand J Dent Res 1990;98:257-260.
31. Gupta R, Parkash H, Shan N, et al. A spectrophotometric evaluation of color changes of various tooth colored materials after exposure to commonly consumed beverages. JIPS 2005;5:72-79.
32. Nakamura T, Saito O, Mizuno M, et al. Changes in translucency and color of particulate filler composite resins. J Esthet Restor Dent 2005;17:293-302.
33. Vichi A, Ferraria M, Davidson CL. Color and opacity variations in three different resin-based composite products after water aging. Dent Mater 2004;20:530-534.
34. Eliades T, Kakaboura A, Eliades G, et al. Comparison of enamel changes associated with orthodontic bonding using two different adhesives. Eur J Orthod 2001;23:85-90.
35. Eliades T, Gioka C, Heim M, et al. Color stability of orthodontic adhesive resins. Angle Orthod 2004;74:391-393.
36. Trakyalı G, Özdemir FI, Arun T. Enamel colour changes at debonding and after finishing procedures using five different adhesives. Eur J Orthod 2009;31:397-401.
37. Douglas RD. Color stability of new generation indirect resins for prosthodontic application. J Prosthet Dent 2000;83:166-170.
38. Saygılı G, Şahmalı S, Demirel F. Colour stability of porcelain repair materials with accelerated ageing. J Oral Rehabil 2006;33:387-392.
39. Da Costa J, Ferracane J, Paravina RD, et al. The effect of different polishing systems on surface roughness and gloss of various resin composites. J Esthet Restor Dent 2007;19:214-226.
40. St-Georges AJ, Bolla M, Fortin D, et al. Surface finish produced on three resin composites by new polishing systems. Oper Dent 2005;30:593-597.
41. Yap AU, Yap SH, Teo CK, et al. Finishing/polishing of composite and compomer restoratives: effectiveness of one-step systems. Oper Dent 2004;29:275-279.
42. Lu H, Roeder LB, Powers JM. Effect of polishing systems on the surface roughness of microhybrid composites. J Esthet Rest Dent 2003;15:297-303.
43. Paravina RD, Roeder L, Lu H, et al. Effect of finishing and polishing procedures on surface roughness, gloss and color of resin-based composites. Am J Dent 2004;17:262-266.
44. Turkun LS, Turkun M. The effect of one step polishing system on the surface roughness of three esthetic resin composite materials. Oper Dent 2004; 29:203-211. 45. Hahnel S, Henrich A, Bürgers R, et al. Investigation of mechanical properties of modern dental composites after artificial aging for one year. Oper Dent. 2010 35(4):412-419. 46. Cenci MS, Venturini D, Pereira-Cenci T, et al. The effect of polishing techniques and time on the surface characteristics and sealing ability of resin composite restorations after one-year storage. Oper Dent. 2008;33:169-176. 47. de Moraes RR, Marimon JL, Schneider LF, et al. Effects of 6 months of aging in water on hardness and surface roughness of two microhybrid dental composites. J Prosthodont 2008;17:323-326. 48. Barucci-Pfister N, Göhring TN. Subjective and objective perceptions of specular gloss and surface roughness of esthetic resin composites before and after artificial aging. Am J Dent 2009;22:102-110. 49. Marghalani HY. Effect of finishing/polishing systems on the surface roughness of novel posterior composites. J Esthet Restor Dent 2010;22:127-138. 50. Bashetty K, Joshi S.The effect of one-step and multi-step polishing systems on surface texture of two different resin composites. J Conserv Dent. 2010;13:3438. 51. Hafez R, Ahmed D, Yousry M, et al. Effect of in-office bleaching on color and surface roughness of composite restoratives. Eur J Dent 2010;4:118-127. 52. Endo T, Finger WJ, Kanehira M, et al. Surface texture and roughness of polished nanofill and nanohybrid resin composites. Dent Mater J 2010;29:213-223. 53. Botta AC, Duarte S Jr, Paulin Filho PI, et al. Surface roughness of enamel and four resin composites. Am J Dent 2009;22:252-254. 54. Turker SB, Biskin T. Effect of three bleaching agents on the surface properties of three different esthetic restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89:466-473.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com