J Korean Acad Prosthodont.
1997 Dec;35(4):719-741.
A DTUDY ON SURFACE ROUGHNESS OF COMPOSITE RESINS AFTER FINISHING AND POLISHING: an Atomic force Microscope study
- Affiliations
-
- 1Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University, Korea.
Abstract
- This study was undertaken to compare by Atomic Force Microscope the effects of various finishing and polishing instruments on surface roughness of filling and veneering composite resins. Seven composite resins were studied : Silux Plus (3M Dental Products, U.S.A.), charisma (Heraeus Kulzer, Germany), Prisma THP (L.D.Caulk, Dentsply, U.S.A.), Photoclearfil (Kuraray, Japan), Cesead (Kuraray, Japan), Thermoresin LC (GC, Japan), Artglass (Heraeus Kulzer, Germany), samples were placed and polymerized in holes (2mm thick and 8.5mm in diameter) machined in Teflon mold under glass plate, ensuring excess of material and moulded to shape with polyester matrix strip, Except control group (polyester mztrix strip), all experimental groups were finished and polishied under manufacturer's instructions. The finishing and polishing procedure were : carbide bur (E.T. carbide set 4159, Komet, Germany), diamond bur (composite resin polishing bur set, GC, Japan), aluminum-oxide disc (Sof-Lex Pop-On, 3M Dental Products, U.S.A.), diamond-particle disc (Dia-Finish, Renfert Germany), white stone bur & rubber point(composite finishing kit, EDENTA, Swiss), respectively. Each specimens were evaluated for the surface roughness with Atomic Force Microscope (AutoProbe CP, Park Scientific Instruments, U.S.A.) under contact mode and constant height mode. The results as follows : 1. Except Thermoresin LC, all experimental composite resin groups showed more rougher than control group after finishing and polishing(p<0.1). 2. A surface as smooth as control group was obtained by Al2O3 disc all filling composite resin groups except Charisma and all veneering composite resin groups except Thermoresin LC(p<0.05). 3. In case of Thermoresin LC, there were no statistically significant differences before and after finishing and polishing(p>0.1). 4. Carbide bur, diamond bur showed rough surfaces in all composite resin groups, so these were inappropriate for the final poslishing instruments.
- Full Text Links
-
- Actions
-
Cited
- CITED
-
- Close
- Share
-
- Similar articles
-
- Surface Roughness and Cariogenic Microbial Adhesion after Polishing of Smart Chromatic Technology-based Composite Resin
- Comparative study of surface roughness between several finishing and polishing procedures on ormocer-based composite resin and nanohybrid composite resin
- Surface roughness and color stability of various composite resins
- A study on surface roughness of metals according to finishing and polishing procedures: an atomic force microscope analysis
- Effect of surface sealant on surface roughness of dental composite with different surface roughness
