Indian Journal of Dental ResearchIndian Journal of Dental ResearchIndian Journal of Dental Research
HOME | ABOUT US | EDITORIAL BOARD | AHEAD OF PRINT | CURRENT ISSUE | ARCHIVES | INSTRUCTIONS | SUBSCRIBE | ADVERTISE | CONTACT
Indian Journal of Dental Research   Login   |  Users online: 1104

Home Bookmark this page Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font size Increase font size         

 


 
Table of Contents   
ORIGINAL RESEARCH  
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 25  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 381-385
Abrasion resistance of direct and indirect resins as a function of a sealant veneer


1 Department of Restorative Dentistry, Paulo State University UNESP, São José dos Campos, Brazil
2 Restorative Dentistry, São Paulo State University UNESP, São José dos Campos, Brazil
3 Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Paulo State University UNESP, São José dos Campos, Brazil

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Submission30-Nov-2009
Date of Decision14-May-2010
Date of Acceptance28-Aug-2010
Date of Web Publication7-Aug-2014
 

   Abstract 

Background: Abrasive wear is one of the most common type of wear that not only affect teeth, as also dental restorations. Thus to investigate one of the etiological factors as tooth brushing procedure is clinical relevant in order to select the best material combination that may prevent damage of resin dental restoration's abrasion.
Aims: This study evaluated the influence of tooth brushing on mass loss and surface roughness of direct Venus (Vs) and indirect Signum (Sg) resin composites, with and without a surface sealant, Fortify (F).
Materials and Methods: Twenty-four specimens were prepared with each resin composite, using their proprietary curing units, according to manufacturer's instructions. All the specimens were polished and ultrasonically cleaned in distilled water for 5 minutes. Half of the specimens of each resin (n = 12) were covered with F (Vs F and Sg F ), except for the control (C) specimens (Vs C and Sg C ), which were not sealed. Mass loss (ML) as well as surface roughness (Ra ) was measured for all the specimens. Then, the specimens were subjected to toothbrush-dentifrice abrasion, using a testing machine for 67.000 brushing strokes, in an abrasive slurry. After brushing simulation, the specimens were removed from the holder, rinsed thoroughly and blot dried with soft absorbent paper. The abrasion of the material was quantitatively determined with final measurements of ML and surface roughness, using the method described above.
Results: ML data were analyzed by two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the analysis indicated that resin composites were not statistically different; however, the specimens sealed with F showed higher ML. Ra mean values of the groups Vs F and Sg F significantly increased.
Conclusion: Tooth brushing affects mainly the roughness of the direct and indirect resin composites veneered with a sealant.

Keywords: Brushing abrasion, composite resins, sealant

How to cite this article:
Ferraz Caneppele TM, Rocha DM, Máximo Araujo MA, Valera MC, Salazar Marocho SM. Abrasion resistance of direct and indirect resins as a function of a sealant veneer. Indian J Dent Res 2014;25:381-5

How to cite this URL:
Ferraz Caneppele TM, Rocha DM, Máximo Araujo MA, Valera MC, Salazar Marocho SM. Abrasion resistance of direct and indirect resins as a function of a sealant veneer. Indian J Dent Res [serial online] 2014 [cited 2020 Sep 22];25:381-5. Available from: http://www.ijdr.in/text.asp?2014/25/3/381/138345
Since the early 1960s, resin composites have been used as esthetic materials in dentistry. Although the mechanical properties have been improved over time, some aspects such as wear, brightness changes and surface staining of the composite resins still face problems that must be considered. [1]

The direct technique often is used in esthetic restorations because it is inexpensive and less treatment sessions are required. [2] The indirect technique represents some advantages in comparison with the direct technique; these include reduction of the shrinkage stress, chance of obtaining a thick layer of luting cement, [3] maintenance of the adhesive interface and improvement of bond strength, [4] finishing and polishing, [5] with improvements in the marginal adaptation. [6],[7],[8] Polymerization shrinkage stress of resin composite materials may cause mainly postoperative sensitivity, and microleakage at the composite-tooth interface, [5] and such events may lead to failure of the system.

Restorations that are smooth, uniform, and highly polished are more esthetic and can be more easily kept in function than restorations with rougher surfaces. This results in longer lasting restorations and satisfied patients. [6] Several studies have indicated that critical threshold surface roughness (R a ) of resin composites for biofilm accumulation ranged from 0.7 to 1.44 μm. However, it is difficult to obtain uniform, well-finished and polished surfaces. [9],[10],[11]

In spite of the resin matrix (TEGDMA/BisGMA) being similar for all types of composite resins, the inorganic fillers differ in size, hardness and weight percentage. The higher the weight percentage, the greater is the amount of fillings in the composite resin, resulting in a highly viscous material.

Polishing is the reduction of roughness and scratches created by the finishing instruments. [12],[13] The organic matrix and the filling particles of composite resins are not polished to the same degree, mainly due to their different hardness. Microscopic irregularities, such as small air bubbles, are formed on the surface due to removal of the resin matrix and displacement of filling particles during the finishing and polishing. Therefore, the matrix and filling particles have an important role in the final smoothness of the resin. Advances in dental materials stimulate laboratorial and clinical researches, and provide numerous advantages in combination with the development of new techniques. [9] Thus, a composite surface sealant has been introduced to the dental market in order to overcome resin composite problems, to maintain surface smoothness, [14],[15] to seal microflaws such as pores and cracks, often produced by the polishing procedure [9],[11] and to improve wear resistance.

The mechanical degradation that a dental material undergoes in the oral cavity is mainly described from the different types of wear. Clinical wear process can be classified as material- and patient-dependent and comprises different wear mechanisms. The most common mechanism is the abrasive wear. Clinical data and studies in vitro have identified tooth brushing with toothpaste as the main agent in dental abrasion, [10],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18],[19],[20],[21],[22],[23] and it affects the structure of the restored and un-restored tooth modifying their characteristics and properties, [10],[24] e.g., loss of mass [15],[25],[26],[27] and volume, [14],[28] surface roughness, [15],[20],[29],[30] topography [14] and color.

Considering that dental materials must last and perform well under the different situations in the oral cavity, e.g. tooth brushing, the aim of this study is to evaluate the abrasion resistance of direct and indirect resin composites, sealed and not sealed with a surface sealant, testing the hypothesis that the sealant influences on the loss mass and roughness of these resin composites.


   Materials and methods Top


Both an indirect composite resin and a direct composite resin and a surface sealant were used in this study. The details of all the materials are given in [Table 1].

Twenty-four specimens were prepared with each resin composite, according to the manufacturer's instructions and the ISO 4049 standards. A metallic matrix (5 mm in diameter and 2 mm deep) was used to produce the specimens. Venus (Vs; Heraeus Kulzer, Hanau, Germany) was applied in one increment into the matrix, covered with a polyester strip to provide a smooth and flat surface, and light-cured through a strip at the top and bottom for 40 seconds with the curing unit Ultralux Eletronic (Dabi Atlante, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil). The curing light output was periodically monitored with a radiometer (Spirith Health, 3K model) and ranged from 500 to 550 mW/cm 2 .

All specimens were polished, both at the top and the bottom, with Sof-Lex Pop-on disks (3M ESPE , St. Paul, Minneapolis, USA), according to manufacturer's recommendations, followed by a decreasing sequence of abrasiveness, with each disk being used for 20 seconds, and ultrasonically cleaned in distilled water for 5 minutes. After the finishing and polishing procedures, half of the specimens of each resin (n = 12) were covered with a specific surface sealant F (Fortify, Bisco, Lombard, Illinois, USA) [Vs F and Sg F (Sg: Signum, Heraeus Kulzer, Hanau, Germany)], except for the control specimens (Vs C and Sg C ), which were not sealed.

Then, a 37% phosphoric acid solution (3M ESPE) was applied for 20 seconds onto the surface of the specimens Vs F and Sg F . The surface was then rinsed with running water for 30 seconds and dried with compressed air. A thin layer of F was applied with a micro-brush, lightly thinned with compressed air, and light-cured for 20 seconds according to the manufacturer's recommendations. Prior to simulated tooth brushing, mass loss (ML) as well as surface roughness was measured for all the specimens. Additionally, vickers microhardness (FM 700: Future Tech Corp., Tokyo, Japan) of the control specimens was assessed before the tooth brushing (50 g over 15 seconds). For every specimen, three measurements were undertaken. An analytical balance (Bel Engeneering, Monza, Italy) was used to measure the masses of the specimens.

Baseline surface roughness measurements (R a in μm) of the polished specimens was evaluated in a roughness tester (Surface Roughness Tester SJ 400, Mitutoyo Corporation, São Paulo, Brazil). Three measurements were taken and the average was obtained with λc (meter cut-off) set for a distance of 3.2 mm.

After ML tests and roughness reading, all the specimens were fixed in the holder of the machine, and subjected to toothbrush-dentifrice abrasion using a testing machine (Johnson and Johnson, São José dos Campos, Brazil) at a vertical load of 200 g during horizontal movements of the toothbrushes. Specimens were submitted and brushed to 67.000 brushing strokes, which according to several authors is equivalent to 6 months of clinical use, [31],[32],[33] in an abrasive slurry. Toothbrushes with medium bristle stiffness (Reach ® Essential, Johnson and Johnson - batch 0708C) were used and renewed after 33.000 brushing strokes.

The abrasive slurry was prepared by mixing 100 ml distilled water with 50 g dentifrice (Colgate-Palmolive, São Bernardo do Campo, Brazil - batch 8260BR12B) and renewed after 33.000 brushing strokes as well. After brushing simulation, the specimens were removed from the holder, rinsed thoroughly and blot dried with soft absorbent paper, and the abrasion of the material was quantitatively determined with final measurements of ML and surface roughness, using the method described above.


   Results Top


The microhardness (HV) mean values and standard deviation of Sg was 60.28 (5.73) and for Vs it was 31.63 (7.25). The statistical analysis using the Student's t-test indicated statistically significant differences among the composite resins (P ≤ 0.05).

ML due to wear was calculated as the difference between the mass of each specimen before and after brushing. Data of ML (mg) were analyzed using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Significant influence of the use of sealant (P < 0.0001) was observed [Table 2].
Table 1: Description of the selected materials according to manufacturer's data


Click here to view
Table 2: Two-way analysis of variance of ML


Click here to view


There was an increase of microhardness assessed with Vickers scale, loss of mass, which was higher after application of a sealant than without it, and greater surface roughness, which was noticed regardless of the material type, after application of sealant. After the application of the sealant, a higher increase of roughness was noted for indirect material (Sg) from over 1.5 R a for (SgF) to about 2.0 R a [Figure 1]. Results of the mean values of roughness parameters (R a ) before and after tooth brushing of the composites resins, with and without sealant, were analyzed statistically by Student's t-test at 5% significance level as shown in [Table 3]. Statistically significant differences in the roughness results were observed among the composite resins with or without sealant, before and after the tooth brushing simulation. R a mean values of the groups Vs F and Sg F significantly increased [Figure 1].
Figure 1: Graphical representation of roughness mean values, before and after tooth brushing simulation of VsF, SgF, VsC, and SgC

Click here to view
Table 3: Mean values of roughness parameter (Ra) of the study groups, before and after tooth brushing simulation


Click here to view



   Discussion Top


This study showed that microhardness of Sg resin was significantly different from that of the direct resin, Vs. A previous study [34] demonstrated there is a positive correlation among the filler particles' volume and the values of microhardness of the resin composites. Nevertheless, according to the manufacturer's information, the indirect resin contains filling particles per unit volume slightly more than the direct resin, which explains the differences in microhardness values between the composite resins.

The final quality of the resin composites can be influenced by factors such as light-curing method, exposure time, [35],[36] radiation energy, [36] distance of the light source to the object, [35] and others. In this study, the composites were light-cured according to manufacturer's instructions. Since Sg is indicated for indirect use, it enables an additional cure into a HeraFlash unit (Heraeus Kulzer, Hanau, Germany). Thus, after the conventional light-cure, Sg specimens were subjected to a final cure in the mentioned device, which may explain the improvement in microhardness values. Soares et al, [37] observed an improvement in microhardness when composites were subjected to complementary methods of polymerization. Vs and Sg showed significantly different microhardness values; no significant differences were found at ML when the sealant surface was not applied, which indicates no wear of the study materials after a restricted time of tooth brushing simulation (6 months).

In accordance with our results, Harrison and Draughn [38] did not find a relationship between the microhardness and wear of composite resins and concluded that the abrasion is a complex phenomenon and materials with high values of hardness or tensile strength are not necessarily more wear resistant. On the other hand, Mayworm et al., [39] observed that abrasive wear is inversely proportional to the material hardness and reported a lower degree of wear of materials with smaller filler particles, due to the reduced interparticle spacing in the resin matrix. The presence of filler particles in the matrix resin, even though in small quantities, significantly increases the wear resistance of these materials. [40] Also, wear resistance due to the resin depends on the strength of polymer links, with cross linking providing improved wear resistance to the material. The groups of specimens sealed showed higher ML under tooth brushing conditions, which may be related to the absence of filler particles in the sealant composition, which confers less wear resistance because the matrix is softer and less wear resistant than the inorganic filler, and preferentially abraded. So far, it does not indicate that the material was not able to fill the structural microflaws formed during the early finishing and polishing procedures.

Despite the fact that the method for surface roughness assessment used in this research was also employed sometime ago, it is still being used to evaluate many dental materials including dental tissue as enamel, because it is easy to be used, practical, and gives reliable results. [13],[41],[42],[43],[44],[45]

As mentioned in our results, the tooth brushing simulation also generated statistical differences between roughness (R a ) results of the sealed and unsealed groups, which is consistent with previous studies. [46],[47] Yet, the surface roughness mean values [Table 3] of all groups, except for Vs C , are comparable to those values (0.7-1.44 μm) that favor biofilm accumulation of the resin composite surface. [9],[10],[11]

The significant increase of the average values of R a after the application of sealant and tooth brushing simulation can be justified by the geometry of the abrasive dentifrice and load applied during the process of tooth brushing. The difference in baseline surface roughness readings was likely due to inherent differences between the two composites. The filler particle size and load have the potential to influence the surface characteristics of a resin composite. Resin composites that contain larger filler particles are expected to have higher R a values after any abrasive procedure such as tooth brushing. Since the direct resin composite used in this study contains barium glass fillers with an average size of 0.7 μm, characterized by a very narrow particle size distribution, the R a value results were lower than those of the indirect resin composite.

The effectiveness of sealants in improving the smoothness of composites is still controversial. [48] We believe that roughness values increased after application of sealant because the acid etching may decrease the surface energy of the resin surface, making the flowing of the sealant on it difficult. Also, manufacturer's guidelines do not include using any air-inhibited layer after the application of the sealant, and this may be other reason why a rougher surface of the sealant was obtained. The larger size and low volume fraction of fillers increase the interparticle spacing in resin composites and may promote the removal of these filler particles. As the polymer matrix wears down, it exposes the filler particles, allowing them to be plucked from the surrounding matrix during the abrasion test.

The surface sealant is a transparent colored resin material which would not influence on the esthetic appearance of the restoration; however, it produced a rough surface after tooth brushing simulation. The smoothness of the sealed resin was modified, and an opaque surface was observed after tooth brushing, which might have been caused by the abrasion procedure or by the wear of the sealer and exposure of the acid etching surfaces of the resin composites before the composite resin sealer application.

Thus, the use of an unfilled surface sealer did not show better roughness results than that shown by resin composites unaided. Further investigation focusing on the ability of the sealant to penetrate and flow into enamel-resin or dentin-resin interfacial microgaps formed in the margins of resin composite restorations, is needed.


   Conclusion Top


In spite of this, the sealant is used as an agent to fill the flaws that persist even after polishing, to improve marginal integrity, and to enhance abrasion resistance in dental composites. Keeping in view the limitations of this study, the results indicated that composite surface sealers mainly affected the roughness of the direct and indirect resin composites when used in flat surfaces.

 
   References Top

1.Rada RE. Achieving anatomic proximal contacts with direct composite resin restorations. Dent Today 2000;19:46-50.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.Dalpino PH, Francischone CE, Ishikiriama A, Franco EB. Fracture resistance of teeth directly and indirectly restored with composite resin and indirectly restored with ceramic materials. Am J Dent 2002;15:389-94.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.Karakaya S, Sengun A, Ozer F. Evaluation of internal adaptation in ceramic and composite resin inlays by silicon replica technique. J Oral Rehabil 2005;32:448-53.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.Braga RR, Ferracane JL, Condon JR. Polymerization contraction stress in dual-cure cements and its effect on interfacial integrity of bonded inlays. J Dent 2002;30:333-40.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.Fabianelli A, Goracci C, Bertelli E, Monticelli F, Grandini S, Ferrari M. In vitro evaluation of wall-to-wall adaptation of a self-adhesive resin cement used for luting gold and ceramic inlays. J Adhes Dent 2005;7:33-40.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.Weitman RT, Eames WB. Plaque accumulation on composite surfaces after various finishing procedures. Oral Health 1975;65:29-33.  Back to cited text no. 6
[PUBMED]    
7.Dukic W, Dukic OL, Milardovic S, Delija B. Clinical evaluation of indirect composite restorations at baseline and 36 months after placement. Oper Dent 2010;35:156-64.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.Duquia Rde C, Osinaga PW, Demarco FF, de VH, Conceicao EN. Cervical microleakage in MOD restorations: In vitro comparison of indirect and direct composite. Oper Dent 2006;31:682-7.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.Dickinson GL, Leinfelder KF, Mazer RB, Russell CM. Effect of surface penetrating sealant on wear rate of posterior composite resins. J Am Dent Assoc 1990;121:251-5.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.Aker JR. New composite resins: Comparison of their resistance to toothbrush abrasion and characteristics of abraded surfaces. J Am Dent Assoc 1982;105:633-5.  Back to cited text no. 10
[PUBMED]    
11.Dickinson GL, Leinfelder KF. Assessing the long-term effect of a surface penetrating sealant. J Am Dent Assoc 1993;124:68-72.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.Turkun LS, Turkun M. The effect of one-step polishing system on the surface roughness of three esthetic resin composite materials. Oper Dent 2004;29:203-11.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.Marghalani HY. Effect of finishing/polishing systems on the surface roughness of novel posterior composites. J Esthet Restor Dent 2010;22:127-38.  Back to cited text no. 13
[PUBMED]    
14.Teixeira EC, Thompson JL, Piascik JR, Thompson JY. In vitro toothbrush-dentifrice abrasion of two restorative composites. J Esthet Restor Dent 2005;17:172-80.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.Wang L, Garcia FC, Amarante de Araujo P, Franco EB, Mondelli RF. Wear resistance of packable resin composites after simulated toothbrushing test. J Esthet Restor Dent 2004;16:303-14.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.Anil N, Bolay S. Effect of toothbrushing on the material loss, roughness, and color of intrinsically and extrinsically stained porcelain used in metal-ceramic restorations: An in vitro study. Int J Prosthodont 2002;15:483-7.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.Heintze SD, Forjanic M. Surface roughness of different dental materials before and after simulated toothbrushing in vitro. Oper Dent 2005;30:617-26.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.Tanoue N, Matsumura H, Atsuta M. Wear and surface roughness of current prosthetic composites after toothbrush/dentifrice abrasion. J Prosthet Dent 2000;84:93-7.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.Yesil Duymus Z, Orbak R, Dilsiz A. Abrasion resistance of veneering materials to tooth brushing. Dent Mater J 2003;22:460-6.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.Goldstein GR, Lerner T. The effect of toothbrushing on a hybrid composite resin. J Prosthet Dent 1991;66:498-500.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.Macdonald E, North A, Maggio B, Sufi F, Mason S, Moore C, et al. Clinical study investigating abrasive effects of three toothpastes and water in an in situ model. J Dent 2010;38:509-16.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.Giles A, Claydon NC, Addy M, Hughes N, Sufi F, West N ×. Clinical in situ study investigating abrasive effects of two commercially available toothpastes. J Oral Rehabil 2009;36:498-507.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.Mondelli RF, Wang L, Garcia F, Prakki A, Mondelli J, Franco E. Evaluation of weight loss and surface roughness of compomers after simulated toothbrushing abrasion test. J Appl Oral Sci 2005;13:131-5.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.Heath JR, Wilson HJ. The effect of dentifrices on restorative materials. J Oral Rehabil 1974;1:47-54.  Back to cited text no. 24
[PUBMED]    
25.Garcia FC, Wang L, D›Alpino PH, Souza JB, Araujo PA, Mondelli RF. Evaluation of the roughness and mass loss of the flowable composites after simulated toothbrushing abrasion. Braz Oral Res 2004;18:156-61.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.Kanter J, Koski RE, Martin D. The relationship of weight loss to surface roughness of composite resins from simulated toothbrushing. J Prosthet Dent 1982;47:505-13.  Back to cited text no. 26
[PUBMED]    
27.Scaramucci T, Marques MM, Soares-Geraldo D, Braga S, Sobral MA. The influence of water temperature during toothbrushing on root dentine: An in vitro study. Indian J Dent Res 2009;20:185-9.  Back to cited text no. 27
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
28.Jones PA, Fisher SE, Wilson HJ. Abrasivity of dentifrices on anterior restorative materials. Br Dent J 1985;158:130-3.  Back to cited text no. 28
[PUBMED]    
29.Johannsen G, Redmalm G, Ryden H. Surface changes on dental materials: The influence of two different dentifrices on surface roughness measured by laser reflexion and profilometer techniques. Swed Dent J 1989;13:267-76.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.Moraes RR, Ribeiro Ddos S, Klumb MM, Brandt WC, Correr-Sobrinho L, Bueno M. In vitro toothbrushing abrasion of dental resin composites: Packable, microhybrid, nanohybrid and microfilled materials. Braz Oral Res 2008;22:112-8.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.Wataha JC, Lockwood PE, Frazier KB, Khajotia SS. Effect of toothbrushing on elemental release from dental casting alloys. J Prosthodont 1999;8:245-51.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.Hossain A, Okawa S, Miyakawa O. Effect of toothbrushing on titanium surface: An approach to understanding surface properties of brushed titanium. Dent Mater 2006;22:346-52.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.Hossain A, Okawa S, Miyakawa O. Surface texture and composition of titanium brushed with toothpaste slurries of different pHs. Dent Mater 2007;23:186-92.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.Kim KH, Ong JL, Okuno O. The effect of filler loading and morphology on the mechanical properties of contemporary composites. J Prosthet Dent 2002;87:642-9.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.Lindberg A, Peutzfeldt A, van Dijken JW. Effect of power density of curing unit, exposure duration, and light guide distance on composite depth of cure. Clin Oral Investig 2005;9:71-6.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.Caldas DB, de Almeida JB, Correr-Sobrinho L, Sinhoreti MA, Consani S. Influence of curing tip distance on resin composite Knoop hardness number, using three different light curing units. Oper Dent 2003;28:315-20.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.Soares CJ, Pizi EC, Fonseca RB, Martins LR. Mechanical properties of light-cured composites polymerized with several additional post-curing methods. Oper Dent 2005;30:389-94.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.Harrison A, Draughn RA. Abrasive wear, tensile strength, and hardness of dental composite resins-is there a relationship? J Prosthet Dent 1976;36:395-8.  Back to cited text no. 38
[PUBMED]    
39.Mayworm CD, Camargo SS Jr, Bastian FL. Influence of artificial saliva on abrasive wear and microhardness of dental composites filled with nanoparticles. J Dent 2008;36:703-10.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.Radal M. Abrasive wear of filled and unfilled resins in vitro. Scand J Dent Res 1978;86:399-403.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.Costa TR, Ferreira SQ, Klein-Junior CA, Loguercio AD, Reis A. Durability of surface treatments and intermediate agents used for repair of a polished composite. Oper Dent 2010;35:231-7.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.Vigolo P, Motterle M. An in vitro evaluation of zirconia surface roughness caused by different scaling methods. J Prosthet Dent 2010;103:283-7.  Back to cited text no. 42
    
43.Sarikaya I, Guler AU. Effects of different polishing techniques on the surface roughness of dental porcelains. J Appl Oral Sci 2010;18:10-6.  Back to cited text no. 43
    
44.Aykent F, Yondem I, Ozyesil AG, Gunal SK, Avunduk MC, Ozkan S. Effect of different finishing techniques for restorative materials on surface roughness and bacterial adhesion. J Prosthet Dent 2010;103:221-7.  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.Ozer T, Basaran G, Kama JD. Surface roughness of the restored enamel after orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137:368-74.  Back to cited text no. 45
    
46.Soelberg K, Nicholson R, Kempler D, Leung R. Effect of abrasion on glaze coating materials. Dent Surv 1977;53:60-4.  Back to cited text no. 46
    
47.Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. The use of glazing materials for finishing dental composite resin surfaces. J Oral Rehabil 1982;9:107-17.  Back to cited text no. 47
[PUBMED]    
48.Cilli R, de Mattos MC, Honorio HM, Rios D, de Araujo PA, Prakki A. The role of surface sealants in the roughness of composites after a simulated toothbrushing test. J Dent 2009;37:970-7.  Back to cited text no. 48
    

Top
Correspondence Address:
Susana María Salazar Marocho
Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Paulo State University UNESP, São José dos Campos
Brazil
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0970-9290.138345

Rights and Permissions


    Figures

  [Figure 1]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]

This article has been cited by
1 Color difference of composite resins after cementation with different shades of resin luting cement
Esra Cengiz,Sevcan Kurtulmus-Yilmaz,Izgen Karakaya,Huseyin Aktore
Odontology. 2018; 106(2): 181
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 Color difference of composite resins after cementation with different shades of resin luting cement
Esra Cengiz,Sevcan Kurtulmus-Yilmaz,Izgen Karakaya,Huseyin Aktore
Odontology. 2018; 106(2): 181
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

Top
 
 
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  
 


    Abstract
    Materials and me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2501    
    Printed56    
    Emailed1    
    PDF Downloaded89    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 2    

Recommend this journal