Effect of three prophylaxis methods on surface roughness of giomer
NAGIOS: RODERIC FUNCIONANDO

Effect of three prophylaxis methods on surface roughness of giomer

DSpace Repository

Effect of three prophylaxis methods on surface roughness of giomer

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Kimyai, Soodabeh es
dc.contributor.author Savadi Oskoee, Siavash es
dc.contributor.author Ajami, Amir Ahmad es
dc.contributor.author Sadr, Alireza es
dc.contributor.author Asdagh, Saeedeh es
dc.date.accessioned 2017-07-27T06:49:10Z
dc.date.available 2017-07-27T06:49:10Z
dc.date.issued 2011 es
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10550/60209
dc.description.abstract Objectives: Plaque and stains are removed by prophylaxis methods from tooth surfaces. Since prophylaxis methods can have a detrimental effect on the surface finish of restorations, the aim of this in vitro study was to investigate the effect of three prophylaxis methods, including pumice with rubber cup, pumice with brush, and air-powder polishing device (APD) on the surface roughness of giomer. Study design: Sixty four cylindrical giomer (Beautifil II, Shofu) samples with a diameter of 6 mm and a height of 2 mm were used. Subsequent to a 3-month period of storage in distilled water at 37ºC, the samples were randomly divided into four groups of 16. In group 1 (control), no prophylaxis procedure was carried out. In groups 2 to 4 the samples were exposed to pumice with rubber cup, pumice with brush, and APD prophylaxis methods, respectively. The surface roughness of the samples was measured using a profilometer and the effect of different prophylaxis methods on surface topography was characterized by atomic force microscopy (AFM). All data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Duncan?s post hoc test at a significance level of P < 0.05. Results: There were statistically significant differences in surface roughness among the groups (P < 0.0005). Furthermore, in pairwise comparisons there were statistically significant differences between all the groups (P < 0.05). The roughest surfaces, in descending order, were observed with the use of APD, pumice with brush, and pumice with rubber cup. Conclusions: The use of different prophylaxis methods resulted in an increased surface roughness of giomer compared with the control group. APD prophylaxis exerted the most detrimental effects on the surface of giomer. es
dc.source Kimyai, Soodabeh ; Savadi Oskoee, Siavash ; Ajami, Amir Ahmad ; Sadr, Alireza ; Asdagh, Saeedeh. Effect of three prophylaxis methods on surface roughness of giomer. En: Medicina oral, patología oral y cirugía bucal. Ed. inglesa, 16 1 2011: 23- es
dc.title Effect of three prophylaxis methods on surface roughness of giomer es
dc.type info:eu-repo/semantics/article en
dc.type info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion en
dc.subject.unesco UNESCO::CIENCIAS MÉDICAS es
dc.identifier.doi 10.4317/medoral.16.e110 es

View       (368.9Kb)

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search DSpace

Advanced Search

Browse

Statistics