Effects of Sonic and Ultrasonic Scaling on the Surface Roughness of Tooth-colored Restorative Materials for Cervical Lesions

Lai, Yulin; Lin, Yi-Chun; Chang, Chia‐Ming; Lee, Shyh Yuan

doi:10.2341/06-77

Cited by 25 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, the possibility of the abrasion of filler phase of resin materials by powder components of APD has been reported (3). The surface roughness of the giomer specimens treated with all prophylaxis methods was greater than 0.2 µm, which is a threshold value for bacterial adherence (14). Therefore, re-polishing of giomer restorations subsequent to the prophylaxis treatments tested might be necessary.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yap et al (3) reported that in flowable, minifill and polyacid modified composites, the control group (untreated) showed the lowest surface roughness compared to the groups with different prophylaxis methods. Furthermore, previous studies have shown that the surface roughness of restorative materials significantly increases following the use of prophylactic polishing pastes, tooth brushing and sonic and ultrasonic periodontal instruments (14,16,17). Giomer is a biphasic restorative material and each of the phases differs in hardness values with no uniform abrasion (19).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to a previously described method (3,4), during the first 6 seconds regular paste was used; then it was replaced with a fine paste for the next 6 seconds of the treatment. In groups 2-4, subsequent to the prophylaxis procedures the samples were rinsed in running water and further cleaned in an ultrasonic bath for 10 minutes (14).…”

Section: Sample Preparationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effect of three prophylaxis methods on surface roughness of giomer

Kimyai¹,

Savadi-Oskoee²,

Ajami³

et al. 2011

Med Oral

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Sample Preparationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effect of three prophylaxis methods on surface roughness of giomer

Kimyai¹,

Savadi-Oskoee²,

Ajami³

et al. 2011

Med Oral

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, the size of the asperities seen with 5 FFMGIC was smaller than those on GIC and 1 FFMGIC samples. The increase in surface roughness of 5 FFMGIC could be due to the high density of the fibres and the formation of more homogenous bi -phasic material with a uniform distribution of the fibres within the structure [33] . The bi -phasic structure of FFMGIC was confirmed by skewed distribution of stiffness and topography.…”

Section: Surface Topography and Mechanical Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surface topography and mechanical properties of flax fibres modified glass ionomer restorative materials

Neel

Chrzanowski

2015

JBEI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Regardless of the excellent adhesive and biological properties of glass ionomer cements (GICs), their poor mechanical properties and abrasion resistance limit their application to non-load bearing areas. This study aimed to investigate the effect of flax fibres incorporation on surface and mechanical properties of GIC filling materials.Methods: Short chopped flax fibres were randomly incorporated into GIC at 0, 0.5, 1, 2.5, 5 and 25 wt%. Surface hardness, distribution of different phases, stiffness map, phase separation and uniformity of the material were investigated.Results: Addition of flax fibres produced no significant change in Vicker hardness number of GIC. Qualitative imaging using atomic force microscopy showed the presence of a single phase in GIC, while biphasic structure was observed for flax fibres modified GICs (FFMGICs). For all tested formulations, the flax fibres, however, were uniformly distributed and well integrated within the GIC matrix without any visible interfacial separation. Incorporation of flax fibres was associated with a significant increase in surface roughness and stiffness. The roughness values obtained for all tested formulations, however, are far below the threshold values for bacterial adhesion and plaque accumulation. Conclusions:Flax fibres modified GICs could be potentially used in high stress bearing areas.

show abstract

“…6 In cervical lesions, various restorative materials can be inserted, such as amalgam, composite resin, and glass ionomer, which can be affected by application of scalers. 14 The use of glass ionomer cements has increased since their introduction in the 1970s, because they have many characteristics of an ideal restorative material, such as similarity to tooth color, uniting with tooth structure, radiopacity, releasing fluoride over time, inhibiting demineralization, tissue compatibility, and contributing remineralization of adjacent dentin. [15][16][17][18] Furthermore, they are the most used filling material for minimally invasive restorations.…”

Section: 5005/jp-journals-10024-2061mentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Hand Instrumentation and Ultrasonic Scaling on the Microleakage of various Cervical Restorations: An in vitro Study

Rohani

Barekatain

Farhad

et al. 2017

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction:In cervical lesions, various restorative materials can be inserted, which can be affected by the application of periodontal scalers. This study evaluated and compared the marginal seal of class V glass ionomer, composite resin, and amalgam restorations after subjecting them to hand instrumentation and ultrasonic scaling. Materials and methods:In this experimental study, 30 sound human first premolars were selected. In each tooth, buccal and lingual cavities (4 mm mesiodistal width, 3 mm occlusogingival height, and 2 mm depth) were made. The teeth were randomly assigned to three groups of 10 teeth: (1) Glass ionomer group, (2) composite group, and (3) amalgam group. Teeth were subjected to thermocycling procedure for 1,000 cycles between 5 and 55°C water baths and a 1-minute dwell time. Then, each group was randomly subdivided: (1) Margins of 30 restorations were exposed to hand instrumentation procedures by applying 10 working strokes, (2) margins of 30 restorations were exposed to a periodontal tip mounted on a piezoelectric ultrasonic handpiece working at 25 kHz for 10 seconds. The specimens were serially sectioned mesiodistally. Each section was examined under a stereomicroscope. The extent of microleakage was ranked using a 0 to 4 scale at both occlusal and cervical margins of the restorations. Data were analyzed initially using the Kruskal-Wallis test, followed by multiple comparisons using the Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon test. Results:The type of restorative material had a significant influence on dye penetration, whether in the enamel margin or in the Conclusion:Type of restorative material had a significant influence on microleakage. No statistical differences were found in dye penetration between scaling groups.Clinical significance: The microleakage of glass ionomer restoration is greater than amalgam and composite restorations after subjecting them to hand instrumentation and ultrasonic scaling.

show abstract

Effects of Sonic and Ultrasonic Scaling on the Surface Roughness of Tooth-colored Restorative Materials for Cervical Lesions

Cited by 25 publications

References 25 publications

Effect of three prophylaxis methods on surface roughness of giomer

Effect of three prophylaxis methods on surface roughness of giomer

Surface topography and mechanical properties of flax fibres modified glass ionomer restorative materials

Influence of Hand Instrumentation and Ultrasonic Scaling on the Microleakage of various Cervical Restorations: An in vitro Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About