DSpace Repository

Effect of different surface treatment methods on the surface roughness and color stability of interim prosthodontic materials

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Dede, Dogu Omur
dc.contributor.author Koroglu, Aysegul
dc.contributor.author Sahin, Onur
dc.contributor.author Yilmaz, Burak
dc.date.accessioned 2022-08-16T06:04:17Z
dc.date.available 2022-08-16T06:04:17Z
dc.date.issued 2016
dc.identifier.uri http://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.10.005
dc.identifier.uri https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002239131500582X?via%3Dihub
dc.identifier.uri http://earsiv.odu.edu.tr:8080/xmlui/handle/11489/1685
dc.description.abstract Statement of problem. The effects of surface sealant agents on the surface roughness and color stability of interim crown materials are unknown. Purpose. The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effects of different polishing methods on the surface roughness and color stability of 4 interim crown materials. Material and methods. A total of 160 specimens were fabricated from 2 poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA; Tab 2000, Dentalon Plus) and 2 bis-acryl (Tempofit, Protemp 4) interim crown materials and divided into 4 groups (n=10) according to applied surface treatment procedures: conventional polishing (control) and 3 surface sealant (Palaseal, Optiglaze, Biscover) coupling methods. Surface roughness (Ra) values were measured with a profilometer. Color parameters were measured with a spectrophotometer before and after staining in coffee. Color differences (CIEDE 2000 [Delta E-00]) were calculated. Data were statistically analyzed with 2-way ANOVA and the Tukey honest significant differences test (alpha=.05). Results. The Ra values of Tempofit with Biscover were significantly lower than their control group, Tab 2000 and Dentalon Plus control groups (P<.05). The highest Delta E-00 was calculated for Tempofit control (P<.05). The Dentalon Plus control group had significantly higher Delta E-00 values than the other groups, except for the Tempofit and Tab 2000 control groups. The Tab 2000 control Delta E-00 was significantly higher than the other groups, except for Dentalon Plus with Palaseal and Dentalon Plus with Optiglaze. Conclusions. All specimens had a surface roughness higher than the plaque accumulation threshold (0.20 mu m). Smoother surfaces were observed for Tempofit with Biscover when compared with theTempofit control. The color change observed with the Dentalon Plus, Tab 2000, and Tempofit control groups was clinically unacceptable. Nonperceivable color changes were seen with Protemp 4 with Optiglaze, Tempofit with Optiglaze, and Tempofit with Biscover. Perceivable but clinically acceptable color changes were observed when sealants were used for all other test groups and Protemp 4 control. en_US
dc.language.iso eng en_US
dc.publisher MOSBY-ELSEVIER, 360 PARK AVENUE SOUTH, NEW YORK, NY 10010-1710 USA en_US
dc.relation.isversionof 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.10.005 en_US
dc.rights info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess en_US
dc.subject RESTORATIVE MATERIALS; COMPOSITE RESINS; PROVISIONAL RESTORATIONS; POLISHING TECHNIQUES; ACRYLIC RESIN; IN-VITRO; STAINABILITY; RETENTION; STRENGTH; SEALANT en_US
dc.title Effect of different surface treatment methods on the surface roughness and color stability of interim prosthodontic materials en_US
dc.type article en_US
dc.relation.journal JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY en_US
dc.contributor.department Ordu Üniversitesi en_US
dc.contributor.authorID 0000-0002-7101-363X en_US
dc.contributor.authorID 0000-0002-8018-6946 en_US
dc.contributor.authorID 0000-0003-1021-5702 en_US
dc.identifier.volume 115 en_US
dc.identifier.issue 4 en_US
dc.identifier.startpage 447 en_US
dc.identifier.endpage 455 en_US


Files in this item

Files Size Format View

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search DSpace


Advanced Search

Browse

My Account