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...
Main Authors: | , , |
---|---|
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 |