Effects of Four Prophylaxis Pastes on Surface Roughness of a Composite, a Hybrid Ionomer, and a Compomer Restorative Material
ABSTRACT Purpose: This study was undertaken to compare the effects of three prophylaxis pastes (Nupro with coarse, medium, or fine pumice) with a new paste (Clinpro with perlite) on the surface roughness of a resin composite (Dyract AP), a hybrid ionomer (Fuji II LC), and a compomer (TPH Spectrum)....
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry 2002-07, Vol.14 (4), p.245-251 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 251 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 245 |
| container_title | Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry |
| container_volume | 14 |
| creator | WARREN, DONNA P. COLESCOTT, TARA DEBNER HENSON, HAROLD A. POWERS, JOHN M. |
| description | ABSTRACT
Purpose: This study was undertaken to compare the effects of three prophylaxis pastes (Nupro with coarse, medium, or fine pumice) with a new paste (Clinpro with perlite) on the surface roughness of a resin composite (Dyract AP), a hybrid ionomer (Fuji II LC), and a compomer (TPH Spectrum).
Materials and Methods: Twenty disks (2 mm thick ± 10 mm in diameter) of each material were prepared in split molds and stored for 24 hours at 37°C in a 100% relative humidity humidistat. Baseline Mylar surface roughness values were determined. A single operator polished each specimen for 10 seconds with each paste. Five tracings of each specimen of surface roughness (Ra, μm) were made using a surface profilometer. Means and standard deviations were calculated, and analyzed by two‐way analysis of variance (three restorative materials and four prophylaxis pastes as factors) and compared using Tukey‐Kramer intervals calculated at the 0.05 level of significance.
Results: Analysis of variance showed significant differences among restorative materials (after polishing) and prophylaxis polishing agents. Tukey‐Kramer intervals for comparisons were 0.04 and 0.05 μm, respectively. All polishing agents produced significant increased roughness compared with baseline, yielding the following results (X + SD, μm) for the three restorative materials (Fuji II LC, TPH Spectrum, Dyract AP): perlite, 0.16 ± 0.07, 0.28 ± 0.26, 0.79 ± 0.64; course pumice, 0.36 ± 0.17, 0.48 ± 0.25, 0.88 ± 0.46; medium pumice, 0.26 ± 0.10, 0.35 ± 0.30, 0.46 ± 0.21; and fine pumice, 0.16 ± 0.06, 0.34 ± 0.30, 0.42 ± 0.24). Fine pumice and perlite produced the least roughness on the hybrid ionomer, medium and fine pumice on the resin composite, and perlite on the compomer.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Since prophylaxis pastes have the potential to increase the surface roughness of resin composite, hybrid ionomer, and compomer restorative materials, routine polishing during prophylaxis should be avoided. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2002.tb00170.x |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_72064234</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>72064234</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3905-a17a247083da8a8ca29552f654b63cf790cedd200a36e2e5176b3f4c15bd80d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqVkU1z0zAQhjUMDC2Fv8BoOHDCRp_-4MLQNP2AAp2QgaNGlldUwbaCZENy4L-jkFDO6CLt7rvvSo8QekZJTtN6ucppSaqsYoLkjBCWjw0hKZVv7qHju9L9dBZ1kQkq5RF6FOMqiWRZlw_REWUs1UR9jH7NrQUzRuwtPvdTwDfBr2-3nd64iG90HCGVBvxpClYbwAs_fb0dIP7Razzz_dpHN8KLFFxum-BafOUH30NImaH9K0kxXkAcfdCj-wH4vR4hON09Rg-s7iI8OewnaHk-X84us-uPF1ezN9eZ4TWRmaalZiI9jLe60pXRrJaS2UKKpuDGljUx0LYJheYFMJC0LBpuhaGyaSvS8hP0fG-7Dv77lO6hehcNdJ0ewE9RlYwUgnGRhK_2QhN8jAGsWgfX67BVlKgde7VSO8BqB1jt2KsDe7VJzU8PU6amh_Zf6wF2ErzeC366Drb_Ya3ezhdnTMjkkO0dXPqYzZ2DDt9UUfJSqi8fLtQZPT2ly8_vVM1_A7dio_E</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>72064234</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Effects of Four Prophylaxis Pastes on Surface Roughness of a Composite, a Hybrid Ionomer, and a Compomer Restorative Material</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>WARREN, DONNA P. ; COLESCOTT, TARA DEBNER ; HENSON, HAROLD A. ; POWERS, JOHN M.</creator><creatorcontrib>WARREN, DONNA P. ; COLESCOTT, TARA DEBNER ; HENSON, HAROLD A. ; POWERS, JOHN M.</creatorcontrib><description>ABSTRACT
Purpose: This study was undertaken to compare the effects of three prophylaxis pastes (Nupro with coarse, medium, or fine pumice) with a new paste (Clinpro with perlite) on the surface roughness of a resin composite (Dyract AP), a hybrid ionomer (Fuji II LC), and a compomer (TPH Spectrum).
Materials and Methods: Twenty disks (2 mm thick ± 10 mm in diameter) of each material were prepared in split molds and stored for 24 hours at 37°C in a 100% relative humidity humidistat. Baseline Mylar surface roughness values were determined. A single operator polished each specimen for 10 seconds with each paste. Five tracings of each specimen of surface roughness (Ra, μm) were made using a surface profilometer. Means and standard deviations were calculated, and analyzed by two‐way analysis of variance (three restorative materials and four prophylaxis pastes as factors) and compared using Tukey‐Kramer intervals calculated at the 0.05 level of significance.
Results: Analysis of variance showed significant differences among restorative materials (after polishing) and prophylaxis polishing agents. Tukey‐Kramer intervals for comparisons were 0.04 and 0.05 μm, respectively. All polishing agents produced significant increased roughness compared with baseline, yielding the following results (X + SD, μm) for the three restorative materials (Fuji II LC, TPH Spectrum, Dyract AP): perlite, 0.16 ± 0.07, 0.28 ± 0.26, 0.79 ± 0.64; course pumice, 0.36 ± 0.17, 0.48 ± 0.25, 0.88 ± 0.46; medium pumice, 0.26 ± 0.10, 0.35 ± 0.30, 0.46 ± 0.21; and fine pumice, 0.16 ± 0.06, 0.34 ± 0.30, 0.42 ± 0.24). Fine pumice and perlite produced the least roughness on the hybrid ionomer, medium and fine pumice on the resin composite, and perlite on the compomer.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Since prophylaxis pastes have the potential to increase the surface roughness of resin composite, hybrid ionomer, and compomer restorative materials, routine polishing during prophylaxis should be avoided.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1496-4155</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1708-8240</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2002.tb00170.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 12214949</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Aluminum Oxide ; Analysis of Variance ; Compomers ; Composite Resins ; Dental Polishing ; Dental Prophylaxis ; Dental Restoration Wear ; Dental Restoration, Permanent ; Dentistry ; Glass Ionomer Cements ; Humans ; Methacrylates ; Resins, Synthetic ; Silicates ; Silicon Dioxide ; Surface Properties</subject><ispartof>Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry, 2002-07, Vol.14 (4), p.245-251</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3905-a17a247083da8a8ca29552f654b63cf790cedd200a36e2e5176b3f4c15bd80d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3905-a17a247083da8a8ca29552f654b63cf790cedd200a36e2e5176b3f4c15bd80d3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1708-8240.2002.tb00170.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1708-8240.2002.tb00170.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12214949$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>WARREN, DONNA P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>COLESCOTT, TARA DEBNER</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>HENSON, HAROLD A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>POWERS, JOHN M.</creatorcontrib><title>Effects of Four Prophylaxis Pastes on Surface Roughness of a Composite, a Hybrid Ionomer, and a Compomer Restorative Material</title><title>Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry</title><addtitle>J Esthet Restor Dent</addtitle><description>ABSTRACT
Purpose: This study was undertaken to compare the effects of three prophylaxis pastes (Nupro with coarse, medium, or fine pumice) with a new paste (Clinpro with perlite) on the surface roughness of a resin composite (Dyract AP), a hybrid ionomer (Fuji II LC), and a compomer (TPH Spectrum).
Materials and Methods: Twenty disks (2 mm thick ± 10 mm in diameter) of each material were prepared in split molds and stored for 24 hours at 37°C in a 100% relative humidity humidistat. Baseline Mylar surface roughness values were determined. A single operator polished each specimen for 10 seconds with each paste. Five tracings of each specimen of surface roughness (Ra, μm) were made using a surface profilometer. Means and standard deviations were calculated, and analyzed by two‐way analysis of variance (three restorative materials and four prophylaxis pastes as factors) and compared using Tukey‐Kramer intervals calculated at the 0.05 level of significance.
Results: Analysis of variance showed significant differences among restorative materials (after polishing) and prophylaxis polishing agents. Tukey‐Kramer intervals for comparisons were 0.04 and 0.05 μm, respectively. All polishing agents produced significant increased roughness compared with baseline, yielding the following results (X + SD, μm) for the three restorative materials (Fuji II LC, TPH Spectrum, Dyract AP): perlite, 0.16 ± 0.07, 0.28 ± 0.26, 0.79 ± 0.64; course pumice, 0.36 ± 0.17, 0.48 ± 0.25, 0.88 ± 0.46; medium pumice, 0.26 ± 0.10, 0.35 ± 0.30, 0.46 ± 0.21; and fine pumice, 0.16 ± 0.06, 0.34 ± 0.30, 0.42 ± 0.24). Fine pumice and perlite produced the least roughness on the hybrid ionomer, medium and fine pumice on the resin composite, and perlite on the compomer.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Since prophylaxis pastes have the potential to increase the surface roughness of resin composite, hybrid ionomer, and compomer restorative materials, routine polishing during prophylaxis should be avoided.</description><subject>Aluminum Oxide</subject><subject>Analysis of Variance</subject><subject>Compomers</subject><subject>Composite Resins</subject><subject>Dental Polishing</subject><subject>Dental Prophylaxis</subject><subject>Dental Restoration Wear</subject><subject>Dental Restoration, Permanent</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Glass Ionomer Cements</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Methacrylates</subject><subject>Resins, Synthetic</subject><subject>Silicates</subject><subject>Silicon Dioxide</subject><subject>Surface Properties</subject><issn>1496-4155</issn><issn>1708-8240</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2002</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqVkU1z0zAQhjUMDC2Fv8BoOHDCRp_-4MLQNP2AAp2QgaNGlldUwbaCZENy4L-jkFDO6CLt7rvvSo8QekZJTtN6ucppSaqsYoLkjBCWjw0hKZVv7qHju9L9dBZ1kQkq5RF6FOMqiWRZlw_REWUs1UR9jH7NrQUzRuwtPvdTwDfBr2-3nd64iG90HCGVBvxpClYbwAs_fb0dIP7Razzz_dpHN8KLFFxum-BafOUH30NImaH9K0kxXkAcfdCj-wH4vR4hON09Rg-s7iI8OewnaHk-X84us-uPF1ezN9eZ4TWRmaalZiI9jLe60pXRrJaS2UKKpuDGljUx0LYJheYFMJC0LBpuhaGyaSvS8hP0fG-7Dv77lO6hehcNdJ0ewE9RlYwUgnGRhK_2QhN8jAGsWgfX67BVlKgde7VSO8BqB1jt2KsDe7VJzU8PU6amh_Zf6wF2ErzeC366Drb_Ya3ezhdnTMjkkO0dXPqYzZ2DDt9UUfJSqi8fLtQZPT2ly8_vVM1_A7dio_E</recordid><startdate>200207</startdate><enddate>200207</enddate><creator>WARREN, DONNA P.</creator><creator>COLESCOTT, TARA DEBNER</creator><creator>HENSON, HAROLD A.</creator><creator>POWERS, JOHN M.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200207</creationdate><title>Effects of Four Prophylaxis Pastes on Surface Roughness of a Composite, a Hybrid Ionomer, and a Compomer Restorative Material</title><author>WARREN, DONNA P. ; COLESCOTT, TARA DEBNER ; HENSON, HAROLD A. ; POWERS, JOHN M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3905-a17a247083da8a8ca29552f654b63cf790cedd200a36e2e5176b3f4c15bd80d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2002</creationdate><topic>Aluminum Oxide</topic><topic>Analysis of Variance</topic><topic>Compomers</topic><topic>Composite Resins</topic><topic>Dental Polishing</topic><topic>Dental Prophylaxis</topic><topic>Dental Restoration Wear</topic><topic>Dental Restoration, Permanent</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Glass Ionomer Cements</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Methacrylates</topic><topic>Resins, Synthetic</topic><topic>Silicates</topic><topic>Silicon Dioxide</topic><topic>Surface Properties</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>WARREN, DONNA P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>COLESCOTT, TARA DEBNER</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>HENSON, HAROLD A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>POWERS, JOHN M.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>WARREN, DONNA P.</au><au>COLESCOTT, TARA DEBNER</au><au>HENSON, HAROLD A.</au><au>POWERS, JOHN M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Effects of Four Prophylaxis Pastes on Surface Roughness of a Composite, a Hybrid Ionomer, and a Compomer Restorative Material</atitle><jtitle>Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry</jtitle><addtitle>J Esthet Restor Dent</addtitle><date>2002-07</date><risdate>2002</risdate><volume>14</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>245</spage><epage>251</epage><pages>245-251</pages><issn>1496-4155</issn><eissn>1708-8240</eissn><abstract>ABSTRACT
Purpose: This study was undertaken to compare the effects of three prophylaxis pastes (Nupro with coarse, medium, or fine pumice) with a new paste (Clinpro with perlite) on the surface roughness of a resin composite (Dyract AP), a hybrid ionomer (Fuji II LC), and a compomer (TPH Spectrum).
Materials and Methods: Twenty disks (2 mm thick ± 10 mm in diameter) of each material were prepared in split molds and stored for 24 hours at 37°C in a 100% relative humidity humidistat. Baseline Mylar surface roughness values were determined. A single operator polished each specimen for 10 seconds with each paste. Five tracings of each specimen of surface roughness (Ra, μm) were made using a surface profilometer. Means and standard deviations were calculated, and analyzed by two‐way analysis of variance (three restorative materials and four prophylaxis pastes as factors) and compared using Tukey‐Kramer intervals calculated at the 0.05 level of significance.
Results: Analysis of variance showed significant differences among restorative materials (after polishing) and prophylaxis polishing agents. Tukey‐Kramer intervals for comparisons were 0.04 and 0.05 μm, respectively. All polishing agents produced significant increased roughness compared with baseline, yielding the following results (X + SD, μm) for the three restorative materials (Fuji II LC, TPH Spectrum, Dyract AP): perlite, 0.16 ± 0.07, 0.28 ± 0.26, 0.79 ± 0.64; course pumice, 0.36 ± 0.17, 0.48 ± 0.25, 0.88 ± 0.46; medium pumice, 0.26 ± 0.10, 0.35 ± 0.30, 0.46 ± 0.21; and fine pumice, 0.16 ± 0.06, 0.34 ± 0.30, 0.42 ± 0.24). Fine pumice and perlite produced the least roughness on the hybrid ionomer, medium and fine pumice on the resin composite, and perlite on the compomer.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Since prophylaxis pastes have the potential to increase the surface roughness of resin composite, hybrid ionomer, and compomer restorative materials, routine polishing during prophylaxis should be avoided.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>12214949</pmid><doi>10.1111/j.1708-8240.2002.tb00170.x</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1496-4155 |
| ispartof | Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry, 2002-07, Vol.14 (4), p.245-251 |
| issn | 1496-4155 1708-8240 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_72064234 |
| source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
| subjects | Aluminum Oxide Analysis of Variance Compomers Composite Resins Dental Polishing Dental Prophylaxis Dental Restoration Wear Dental Restoration, Permanent Dentistry Glass Ionomer Cements Humans Methacrylates Resins, Synthetic Silicates Silicon Dioxide Surface Properties |
| title | Effects of Four Prophylaxis Pastes on Surface Roughness of a Composite, a Hybrid Ionomer, and a Compomer Restorative Material |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-03T05%3A47%3A00IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Effects%20of%20Four%20Prophylaxis%20Pastes%20on%20Surface%20Roughness%20of%20a%20Composite,%20a%20Hybrid%20Ionomer,%20and%20a%20Compomer%20Restorative%20Material&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20esthetic%20and%20restorative%20dentistry&rft.au=WARREN,%20DONNA%20P.&rft.date=2002-07&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=245&rft.epage=251&rft.pages=245-251&rft.issn=1496-4155&rft.eissn=1708-8240&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1708-8240.2002.tb00170.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E72064234%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=72064234&rft_id=info:pmid/12214949&rfr_iscdi=true |