- Email: [email protected]
gloss of a resin composite using different polishing procedures
e73
d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 0 S ( 2 0 1 4 ) e1–e180
Calcium released (ppm)
Dicalcium silicate Tricalcium silicate MM-MTA
3h
1 day
3 days
7 days
14 days
87.63 ± 1.10 112.34 ± 7.12 544.50 ± 7.78
38.06 ± 12.30 105.28 ± 30.08 112.55 ± 16.62
34.24 ± 11.10 102.62 ± 37.62 127.15 ± 17.60
24.33 ± 1.97 132.61 ± 29.67 132.60 ± 2.96
35.18 ± 650 129.60 ± 32.15 38.80 ± 2.12
Ph of soaking water
Dicalcium silicate Tricalcium silicate MM-MTA
3h
1 day
3 days
7 days
14 days
11.35 ± 0.14 12.01 ± 0.18 10.86 ± 0.48
10.27 ± 0.58 11.45 ± 0.13 11.31 ± 0.22
8.83 ± 0.61 11.10 ± 0.79 9.85 ± 0.06
8.81 ± 0.10 11.46 ± 0.28 10.99 ± 0.04
Exterior volume
Volume of open pores
Volume of impervious
Apparent
Water sorption
(v, cm3 )
(Vop , cm3 )
portion (vip , cm3 )
porosity
(%)
8.77 ± 0.10 10.62 ± 1.54 9.47 ± 1.27 Solubility (%)
(Vop /V%)
Dicalcium silicate Tricalcium silicate MM-MTA
0.0933 ± 0.0047 0.08775 ± 0.0064 0.07665 ± 0.0044
0.0381 ± 0.0028 0.0289 ± 0.006 0.0474 ± 0.0027
0.0553 ± 0.0019 0.0588 ± 0.0057 0.0292 ± 0.0018
40.68 ± 0.96 33.05 ± 1.70 61.84 ± 0.09
22.94 ± 1.52 19.40 ± 1.92 54.46 ± 0.23
18.22 ± 0.43 14.14 ± 0.71 37.80 ± 1.33
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2014.08.146 146 MTA cement exposed to acidic environment: Surface and internal microhardness D. Angerame, M. De Biasi, A. Franzò ∗ University of Trieste, Italy
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2014.08.147 147 Surface roughness/gloss of a resin composite using different polishing procedures A. Catellani ∗ , G. Orsini, G. Mengoni, S. Corda, S. Sparabombe, M. Procaccini, A. Putignano University of Ancona, Italy Purpose: To evaluate the surface roughness and gloss of a resin composite polished using different polishing procedures. Methods and materials: Twenty-four disk specimens of Filtek Supreme XTE Universal Restorative resin composite (3 M, ESPE, Seefeld, Germany) were prepared and divided into four groups, each polished with one of the following methods: (1) Sof-Lex XT Discs (3 M); (2) diamond bur (Komet USA) or Sof-Lex coarse (3 M) to prep the surface – Multi-blade (Komet) – Spiral Wheels (3 M); (3) diamond bur or Sof-Lex coarse to prep the surface – multi-blade – spiral wheels + diamond paste (diamond twist SCL, premier dental; (4) diamond bur or Sof-Lex coarse to prep the surface – Multi-blade + occlubrush (KerrDental). Gloss (excellent-good-acceptable-poor) and surface roughness (Ra) were evaluated by a 608-angle glossimetry and a whitelight
interferometric profilometry, respectively. A one-way ANOVA with Sidak correction was used to compare groups. Results: The mean surface roughness of the four groups (ordered from 1 to 4) was: 0.09 ± 0.05 lm; 0.40 ± 0.25 lm; 0.28 ± 0.06 lm; and 0.28 ± 0.10 lm. Group 1 roughness was significantly lower than groups 2, 3 and 4 (all p = 0.01), while no significant differences were observed across groups 2, 3, and 4. The average gloss in the four groups (ordered from 1 to 4) was: excellent (>80 g.u.); poor/acceptable; acceptable; and acceptable/good gloss. Again, group 1 average gloss was significantly superior to the other three groups (p < 0.01). Group 4 gloss was also significantly better than group 2 (p < 0.05); no other differences were observed. Conclusion: The polishing procedure and the type of polishing materials had an impact on surface roughness and gloss of the examined composite restorative material. The best performance in both roughness and gloss was obtained performing the polishing without using diamond bur or coarse grit discs. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2014.08.148
d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 0 S ( 2 0 1 4 ) e1–e180
Calcium released (ppm)
Dicalcium silicate Tricalcium silicate MM-MTA
3h
1 day
3 days
7 days
14 days
87.63 ± 1.10 112.34 ± 7.12 544.50 ± 7.78
38.06 ± 12.30 105.28 ± 30.08 112.55 ± 16.62
34.24 ± 11.10 102.62 ± 37.62 127.15 ± 17.60
24.33 ± 1.97 132.61 ± 29.67 132.60 ± 2.96
35.18 ± 650 129.60 ± 32.15 38.80 ± 2.12
Ph of soaking water
Dicalcium silicate Tricalcium silicate MM-MTA
3h
1 day
3 days
7 days
14 days
11.35 ± 0.14 12.01 ± 0.18 10.86 ± 0.48
10.27 ± 0.58 11.45 ± 0.13 11.31 ± 0.22
8.83 ± 0.61 11.10 ± 0.79 9.85 ± 0.06
8.81 ± 0.10 11.46 ± 0.28 10.99 ± 0.04
Exterior volume
Volume of open pores
Volume of impervious
Apparent
Water sorption
(v, cm3 )
(Vop , cm3 )
portion (vip , cm3 )
porosity
(%)
8.77 ± 0.10 10.62 ± 1.54 9.47 ± 1.27 Solubility (%)
(Vop /V%)
Dicalcium silicate Tricalcium silicate MM-MTA
0.0933 ± 0.0047 0.08775 ± 0.0064 0.07665 ± 0.0044
0.0381 ± 0.0028 0.0289 ± 0.006 0.0474 ± 0.0027
0.0553 ± 0.0019 0.0588 ± 0.0057 0.0292 ± 0.0018
40.68 ± 0.96 33.05 ± 1.70 61.84 ± 0.09
22.94 ± 1.52 19.40 ± 1.92 54.46 ± 0.23
18.22 ± 0.43 14.14 ± 0.71 37.80 ± 1.33
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2014.08.146 146 MTA cement exposed to acidic environment: Surface and internal microhardness D. Angerame, M. De Biasi, A. Franzò ∗ University of Trieste, Italy
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2014.08.147 147 Surface roughness/gloss of a resin composite using different polishing procedures A. Catellani ∗ , G. Orsini, G. Mengoni, S. Corda, S. Sparabombe, M. Procaccini, A. Putignano University of Ancona, Italy Purpose: To evaluate the surface roughness and gloss of a resin composite polished using different polishing procedures. Methods and materials: Twenty-four disk specimens of Filtek Supreme XTE Universal Restorative resin composite (3 M, ESPE, Seefeld, Germany) were prepared and divided into four groups, each polished with one of the following methods: (1) Sof-Lex XT Discs (3 M); (2) diamond bur (Komet USA) or Sof-Lex coarse (3 M) to prep the surface – Multi-blade (Komet) – Spiral Wheels (3 M); (3) diamond bur or Sof-Lex coarse to prep the surface – multi-blade – spiral wheels + diamond paste (diamond twist SCL, premier dental; (4) diamond bur or Sof-Lex coarse to prep the surface – Multi-blade + occlubrush (KerrDental). Gloss (excellent-good-acceptable-poor) and surface roughness (Ra) were evaluated by a 608-angle glossimetry and a whitelight
interferometric profilometry, respectively. A one-way ANOVA with Sidak correction was used to compare groups. Results: The mean surface roughness of the four groups (ordered from 1 to 4) was: 0.09 ± 0.05 lm; 0.40 ± 0.25 lm; 0.28 ± 0.06 lm; and 0.28 ± 0.10 lm. Group 1 roughness was significantly lower than groups 2, 3 and 4 (all p = 0.01), while no significant differences were observed across groups 2, 3, and 4. The average gloss in the four groups (ordered from 1 to 4) was: excellent (>80 g.u.); poor/acceptable; acceptable; and acceptable/good gloss. Again, group 1 average gloss was significantly superior to the other three groups (p < 0.01). Group 4 gloss was also significantly better than group 2 (p < 0.05); no other differences were observed. Conclusion: The polishing procedure and the type of polishing materials had an impact on surface roughness and gloss of the examined composite restorative material. The best performance in both roughness and gloss was obtained performing the polishing without using diamond bur or coarse grit discs. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2014.08.148