| ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2021 | Volume
: 24
| Issue : 3 | Page : 231-235 |
|
|
Effect of prophylactic instrumentation on surface roughness of tooth-colored restorative material: An in vitro study
Gauravi Bajpai1, Sachin Gupta1, Vineeta Nikhil1, Shikha Jaiswal1, Shalya Raj2, Preeti Mishra1
1 Department of Conservative and Endodontics, Subharti Dental College, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, India
2 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Subharti Dental College and Hospital, Swami Vivekanand Subharti University, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, India
Correspondence Address:
Dr. Shikha Jaiswal
Department of Conservative and Endodontics, Subharti Dental College, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/jcd.jcd_29_21
|
|
|
Aim: To compare and evaluate the surface characteristics of different restorative materials used for restoration of cervical defects when subjected to periodontal prophylactic instrumentation techniques.
Materials and Methodology: Sixty box-shaped cavities were prepared on the labial surface of decoronated permanent maxillary anterior teeth which were randomly divided into two groups (n = 30) based on the instrumentation technique Group I: Manual instrumentation using curettes and Group II: Ultrasonic instrumentation. The samples were further divided into three subgroups based on restorative material subgroups I V and II V-restored with Vitremer, subgroups I F and II F-restored with Filtek Z 250 XT and subgroups I D and II D-restored with Dyract flow, respectively. After finishing and polishing, the samples were subjected to surface profilometry analysis for determining the surface roughness values (Ra). Thereafter, the restored surfaces of all the samples in different subgroups were subjected to prophylactic instrumentation with Gracey's curettes (Group I) and ultrasonic scalers (Group II). Ra values were recorded again after prophylactic instrumentation and after polishing. The data thus obtained were subjected to the statistical analysis using the independent t-test and one-way ANOVA (p<0.05).
Results: Ra values were significantly higher for both manual and ultrasonic prophylaxis compared to preprophylaxis and postpolishing in all the three restorative materials. Ultrasonic scaling produced significantly higher Ra for subgroup V as compared to subgroup F and subgroup D, whereas the difference between the materials was not significant for manual scaling.
Conclusion: Manual prophylaxis resulted in significant reduction in surface roughness of all the three restorative materials while ultrasonic prophylaxis resulted in significant reduction for Vitremer only. Polishing after scaling significantly reduced the effect of both manual and ultrasonic prophylaxis on surface roughness.
|
|
|
|
| [FULL TEXT] [PDF]* |
|
 |
|
