| ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2016 | Volume
: 19
| Issue : 1 | Page : 56-62 |
|
|
Evaluation of surface roughness of different restorative composites after polishing using atomic force microscopy
C Meena Kumari1, K Manohar Bhat2, Rahul Bansal1
1 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, M. M. College of Dental Sciences and Research, Mullana, Ambala, Haryana, India
2 Department of Pedodontia, Jaipur Dental College, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India
Correspondence Address:
Dr. C Meena Kumari
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, M. M. College of Dental Sciences and Research, Mullana, Ambala, Haryana
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.173200
|
|
|
Introduction: Resin based composites are widely used aesthetic restorative materials in clinical restorative dentistry. The filler size and the percentage of fillers affects smooth surface, clinical durability, aesthetics, better optical properties, compatibility with natural enamel tissue, surface gloss, and preventing the discoloration of the restoration. The finishing and polishing of tooth-coloured restorations are necessary clinical steps for better aesthetics and longevity of restored teeth.
Aim: In this study nano composites were chosen, because these contain nano particles which provide better overall composites features, including the quality of polished surface. The aim of this study was to evaluate the surface roughness of different newer posterior composites.
Material and Method: Five commercially available posterior restorative composite were tested in this study. All the specimens were polished with shofu multi step polishing system. After polishing the samples were all analyzed by atomic force microscopy which is used to study surface topography and surface morphology of materials.
Results: The values of surface roughness of each specimen were statistically analyzed using Kruskal Wallis ANOVA, and Pair wise comparisons by Mann-Whitney U test setting the statistical significance at p ≤ 0.05.
Conclusion: Tetric Evo Ceram, Z350 exhibited less surface roughness compared to Ever X, Clearfil Majesty and Sure fil SDR. There was no statistical difference between groups regarding surface rough ness between groups. |
|
|
|
| [FULL TEXT] [PDF]* |
|
 |
|
