The surface roughness difference between microhybrid and polycrystalline composites after polishing

<span style="font-family: TribuneBold; font-size: 10pt; color: #231f20; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;"><strong>Background</strong><span style="font-family: TribuneItalic; font-size: 9pt; color: #231f20; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;"&g...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Eric Priyo Prasetyo, Karlina Samadi, Cecilia Gerda Juliani Lunardhi
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Universitas Airlangga 2008-12-01
Series:Dental Journal: Majalah Kedokteran Gigi
Subjects:
Online Access:http://e-journal.unair.ac.id/index.php/MKG/article/view/984
id doaj-ae8cf6dd2a294539a49d43c9a4f1d62c
record_format Article
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Eric Priyo Prasetyo
Karlina Samadi
Cecilia Gerda Juliani Lunardhi
spellingShingle Eric Priyo Prasetyo
Karlina Samadi
Cecilia Gerda Juliani Lunardhi
The surface roughness difference between microhybrid and polycrystalline composites after polishing
Dental Journal: Majalah Kedokteran Gigi
surface roughness
microhybrid composite
polycrystalline composite
author_facet Eric Priyo Prasetyo
Karlina Samadi
Cecilia Gerda Juliani Lunardhi
author_sort Eric Priyo Prasetyo
title The surface roughness difference between microhybrid and polycrystalline composites after polishing
title_short The surface roughness difference between microhybrid and polycrystalline composites after polishing
title_full The surface roughness difference between microhybrid and polycrystalline composites after polishing
title_fullStr The surface roughness difference between microhybrid and polycrystalline composites after polishing
title_full_unstemmed The surface roughness difference between microhybrid and polycrystalline composites after polishing
title_sort surface roughness difference between microhybrid and polycrystalline composites after polishing
publisher Universitas Airlangga
series Dental Journal: Majalah Kedokteran Gigi
issn 1978-3728
2442-9740
publishDate 2008-12-01
description <span style="font-family: TribuneBold; font-size: 10pt; color: #231f20; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;"><strong>Background</strong><span style="font-family: TribuneItalic; font-size: 9pt; color: #231f20; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;"><em>: One of the success criteria for a composite resin restorative material is the surface roughness that can be achieved </em><span style="font-family: TribuneItalic; font-size: 9pt; color: #231f20; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;"><em>through polishing. Considering that there are so many types of composite resin materials on the market, including polycrystalline </em><span style="font-family: TribuneItalic; font-size: 9pt; color: #231f20; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;"><em>composites, information on this type of composite’s surface roughness is needed. </em><span style="font-family: TribuneBold; font-size: 10pt; color: #231f20; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;"><strong>Purpose</strong><span style="font-family: TribuneItalic; font-size: 9pt; color: #231f20; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;"><em>: The aim of this laboratory experiment was </em><span style="font-family: TribuneItalic; font-size: 9pt; color: #231f20; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;"><em>to compare the surface roughness difference between microhybrid and polycrystalline composite after polishing. </em><span style="font-family: TribuneBold; font-size: 10pt; color: #231f20; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;"><strong>Methods: </strong><span style="font-family: TribuneItalic; font-size: 9pt; color: #231f20; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;"><em>In order to </em><span style="font-family: TribuneItalic; font-size: 9pt; color: #231f20; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;"><em>obtain this, a laboratory experiment was done. Four groups of composites were produced, the first two groups consist of microhybrid </em><span style="font-family: TribuneItalic; font-size: 9pt; color: #231f20; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;"><em>composite and the second two groups consist of polycrystalline composite. Two groups with the same material were treated with two </em><span style="font-family: TribuneItalic; font-size: 9pt; color: #231f20; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;"><em>different treatments as follows: the first group was not finished (the surface is under celluloid matrix), the second group was finished </em><span style="font-family: TribuneItalic; font-size: 9pt; color: #231f20; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;"><em>and polished. After these treatments, each sample’s surface was measured using surface roughness measuring instrument and then </em><span style="font-family: TribuneItalic; font-size: 9pt; color: #231f20; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;"><em>the </em><span style="font-family: TribuneBold; font-size: 10pt; color: #231f20; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;"><strong>Results: </strong><span style="font-family: TribuneItalic; font-size: 9pt; color: #231f20; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;"><em>were analyzed statistically using independent t-test (</em><span style="font-family: SymbolProportionalBT-Regular; font-size: 9pt; color: #231f20; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;">α <span style="font-family: TribuneItalic; font-size: 9pt; color: #231f20; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;"><em>= 0.05). </em><span style="font-family: TribuneBold; font-size: 10pt; color: #231f20; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;"><strong>Conclusion: </strong><span style="font-family: TribuneItalic; font-size: 9pt; color: #231f20; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;"><em>The result showed that after polishing, the </em><span style="font-family: TribuneItalic; font-size: 9pt; color: #231f20; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;"><em>surface roughness of polycrystalline composite is lower than that of microhybrid composite.</em></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span>
topic surface roughness
microhybrid composite
polycrystalline composite
url http://e-journal.unair.ac.id/index.php/MKG/article/view/984
work_keys_str_mv AT ericpriyoprasetyo thesurfaceroughnessdifferencebetweenmicrohybridandpolycrystallinecompositesafterpolishing
AT karlinasamadi thesurfaceroughnessdifferencebetweenmicrohybridandpolycrystallinecompositesafterpolishing
AT ceciliagerdajulianilunardhi thesurfaceroughnessdifferencebetweenmicrohybridandpolycrystallinecompositesafterpolishing
AT ericpriyoprasetyo surfaceroughnessdifferencebetweenmicrohybridandpolycrystallinecompositesafterpolishing
AT karlinasamadi surfaceroughnessdifferencebetweenmicrohybridandpolycrystallinecompositesafterpolishing
AT ceciliagerdajulianilunardhi surfaceroughnessdifferencebetweenmicrohybridandpolycrystallinecompositesafterpolishing
_version_ 1725407292354985984
spelling doaj-ae8cf6dd2a294539a49d43c9a4f1d62c2020-11-25T00:10:45ZengUniversitas AirlanggaDental Journal: Majalah Kedokteran Gigi1978-37282442-97402008-12-0141416416610.20473/j.djmkg.v41.i4.p164-166824The surface roughness difference between microhybrid and polycrystalline composites after polishingEric Priyo Prasetyo0Karlina Samadi1Cecilia Gerda Juliani Lunardhi2Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Universitas AirlanggaDepartment of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Universitas AirlanggaDepartment of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Universitas Airlangga<span style="font-family: TribuneBold; font-size: 10pt; color: #231f20; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;"><strong>Background</strong><span style="font-family: TribuneItalic; font-size: 9pt; color: #231f20; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;"><em>: One of the success criteria for a composite resin restorative material is the surface roughness that can be achieved </em><span style="font-family: TribuneItalic; font-size: 9pt; color: #231f20; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;"><em>through polishing. Considering that there are so many types of composite resin materials on the market, including polycrystalline </em><span style="font-family: TribuneItalic; font-size: 9pt; color: #231f20; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;"><em>composites, information on this type of composite’s surface roughness is needed. </em><span style="font-family: TribuneBold; font-size: 10pt; color: #231f20; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;"><strong>Purpose</strong><span style="font-family: TribuneItalic; font-size: 9pt; color: #231f20; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;"><em>: The aim of this laboratory experiment was </em><span style="font-family: TribuneItalic; font-size: 9pt; color: #231f20; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;"><em>to compare the surface roughness difference between microhybrid and polycrystalline composite after polishing. </em><span style="font-family: TribuneBold; font-size: 10pt; color: #231f20; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;"><strong>Methods: </strong><span style="font-family: TribuneItalic; font-size: 9pt; color: #231f20; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;"><em>In order to </em><span style="font-family: TribuneItalic; font-size: 9pt; color: #231f20; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;"><em>obtain this, a laboratory experiment was done. Four groups of composites were produced, the first two groups consist of microhybrid </em><span style="font-family: TribuneItalic; font-size: 9pt; color: #231f20; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;"><em>composite and the second two groups consist of polycrystalline composite. Two groups with the same material were treated with two </em><span style="font-family: TribuneItalic; font-size: 9pt; color: #231f20; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;"><em>different treatments as follows: the first group was not finished (the surface is under celluloid matrix), the second group was finished </em><span style="font-family: TribuneItalic; font-size: 9pt; color: #231f20; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;"><em>and polished. After these treatments, each sample’s surface was measured using surface roughness measuring instrument and then </em><span style="font-family: TribuneItalic; font-size: 9pt; color: #231f20; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;"><em>the </em><span style="font-family: TribuneBold; font-size: 10pt; color: #231f20; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;"><strong>Results: </strong><span style="font-family: TribuneItalic; font-size: 9pt; color: #231f20; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;"><em>were analyzed statistically using independent t-test (</em><span style="font-family: SymbolProportionalBT-Regular; font-size: 9pt; color: #231f20; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;">α <span style="font-family: TribuneItalic; font-size: 9pt; color: #231f20; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;"><em>= 0.05). </em><span style="font-family: TribuneBold; font-size: 10pt; color: #231f20; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;"><strong>Conclusion: </strong><span style="font-family: TribuneItalic; font-size: 9pt; color: #231f20; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;"><em>The result showed that after polishing, the </em><span style="font-family: TribuneItalic; font-size: 9pt; color: #231f20; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;"><em>surface roughness of polycrystalline composite is lower than that of microhybrid composite.</em></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span>http://e-journal.unair.ac.id/index.php/MKG/article/view/984surface roughnessmicrohybrid compositepolycrystalline composite