Journal of Conservative Dentistry
Home About us Editorial Board Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact e-Alerts Login 
Users Online: 54
Print this page  Email this page Bookmark this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
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


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
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jcd.jcd_29_21

Rights and Permissions

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]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1769    
    Printed84    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded146    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal