The Effect of Simulated Chewing on the Surface Roughness of Direct and Indirect Resin-Composites Opposed by Zirconia: An In Vitro Study
Purpose. To assess the surface roughness of two different light-cured resin-composites when opposed by monolithic zirconia after simulated mastication. Materials and Methods. Materials included a direct restorative nanohybrid (n=10) and an indirect microhybrid (n=10) resin-composite (Tetric EvoCeram...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | BioMed research international 2022, Vol.2022 (1), p.8686540-8686540 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 8686540 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 8686540 |
| container_title | BioMed research international |
| container_volume | 2022 |
| creator | AlSuwaidi, Ghadeer S. Alshali, Ruwaida Z. Salim, Nesreen A. Satterthwaite, Julian D. Silikas, Nick |
| description | Purpose. To assess the surface roughness of two different light-cured resin-composites when opposed by monolithic zirconia after simulated mastication. Materials and Methods. Materials included a direct restorative nanohybrid (n=10) and an indirect microhybrid (n=10) resin-composite (Tetric EvoCeram and Sinfony, respectively). The antagonist material was 3 mol% yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystalline ceramic. Each material was subjected to in vitro chewing against zirconia using a chewing simulator for 250,000 cycles. A 3D profilometer was used to assess the surface roughness parameters of each resin-composite before and after the simulated chewing. Independent t-test and paired sample t-test were performed to compare roughness values for both materials and to compare baseline and after chewing simulation values (p=0.05). Results. Sinfony showed significantly greater roughness values compared to Tetric EvoCeram (p≤0.025) before and after simulated chewing, except for Sa and Sv parameters after simulated chewing where the difference between the two materials was insignificant (p=0.06 and 0.89, respectively). Surface roughness increased for both materials after simulated chewing compared to baseline values, but the difference was insignificant (p≥0.065). However, Sa (p=0.04) and Sv (p=0.012) for Tetric EvoCeram were significantly higher after compared to before chewing simulation. Conclusion. Tetric EvoCeram had a smoother surface than Sinfony before and after simulated chewing. Surface roughness for both materials was higher after simulated chewing compared to baseline values which represent surface damage that was significant for Tetric EvoCeram while Sinfony showed better resistance. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1155/2022/8686540 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9482527</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A718135481</galeid><sourcerecordid>A718135481</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c410t-2d475c8afe8869aa4e67d3e399c086786c8677062f3d99e27e59bbc90adbedb73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc9u1DAQxiMEEtXSGw9giQsShPpPYjsckFZLgUqVKnULBy6WY082rhJ7sROqfQJeG0e7qoADPozH8m--GfsripcEvyOkri8opvRCcsnrCj8pzigjVclJRZ4-5ow9L85Tusd5ScJxw8-KX3c9oMuuAzOh0KGtG-dBT2DRpocH53coeDRlZDvHThtAt2He9R5SWuiPLi512lt05e3xcAvJ-XITxn1IboKEbvY5y4LtAX130QTv9Hu09rkCfXNTDGg7zfbwonjW6SHB-WlfFV8_Xd5tvpTXN5-vNuvr0lQETyW1laiN1B1IyRutK-DCMmBNY7DkQnKTo8Ccdsw2DVABddO2psHatmBbwVbFh6Pufm5HsAb8FPWg9tGNOh5U0E79feNdr3bhp2oqSWu6CLw-CcTwY4Y0qdElA8OgPYQ5KSryz8qGMJrRV_-g92GOPj9voWrGRC3-oHZ6AOV8F3Jfs4iqtSCSsLrKYVW8PVImhpQidI8jE6wW_9Xivzr5n_E3R7x33uoH93_6N1cUrys</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2715337572</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Effect of Simulated Chewing on the Surface Roughness of Direct and Indirect Resin-Composites Opposed by Zirconia: An In Vitro Study</title><source>Wiley Open Access</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><creator>AlSuwaidi, Ghadeer S. ; Alshali, Ruwaida Z. ; Salim, Nesreen A. ; Satterthwaite, Julian D. ; Silikas, Nick</creator><contributor>Zhang, Xiao Lei ; Xiao Lei Zhang</contributor><creatorcontrib>AlSuwaidi, Ghadeer S. ; Alshali, Ruwaida Z. ; Salim, Nesreen A. ; Satterthwaite, Julian D. ; Silikas, Nick ; Zhang, Xiao Lei ; Xiao Lei Zhang</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose. To assess the surface roughness of two different light-cured resin-composites when opposed by monolithic zirconia after simulated mastication. Materials and Methods. Materials included a direct restorative nanohybrid (n=10) and an indirect microhybrid (n=10) resin-composite (Tetric EvoCeram and Sinfony, respectively). The antagonist material was 3 mol% yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystalline ceramic. Each material was subjected to in vitro chewing against zirconia using a chewing simulator for 250,000 cycles. A 3D profilometer was used to assess the surface roughness parameters of each resin-composite before and after the simulated chewing. Independent t-test and paired sample t-test were performed to compare roughness values for both materials and to compare baseline and after chewing simulation values (p=0.05). Results. Sinfony showed significantly greater roughness values compared to Tetric EvoCeram (p≤0.025) before and after simulated chewing, except for Sa and Sv parameters after simulated chewing where the difference between the two materials was insignificant (p=0.06 and 0.89, respectively). Surface roughness increased for both materials after simulated chewing compared to baseline values, but the difference was insignificant (p≥0.065). However, Sa (p=0.04) and Sv (p=0.012) for Tetric EvoCeram were significantly higher after compared to before chewing simulation. Conclusion. Tetric EvoCeram had a smoother surface than Sinfony before and after simulated chewing. Surface roughness for both materials was higher after simulated chewing compared to baseline values which represent surface damage that was significant for Tetric EvoCeram while Sinfony showed better resistance.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2314-6133</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2314-6141</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1155/2022/8686540</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Hindawi</publisher><subject>Chewing ; Composite materials ; Dental acrylic resins ; Dental crowns ; Dental resins ; Enamel ; Laboratories ; Light ; Mastication ; Mechanical properties ; Parameters ; Polymerization ; Profilometers ; Resins ; Simulation ; Surface roughness ; Teeth ; Testing ; Tetragonal zirconia ; Yttria-stabilized zirconia ; Yttrium oxide ; Zirconia ; Zirconium oxide</subject><ispartof>BioMed research international, 2022, Vol.2022 (1), p.8686540-8686540</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2022 Ghadeer S. AlSuwaidi et al.</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2022 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2022 Ghadeer S. AlSuwaidi et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0</rights><rights>Copyright © 2022 Ghadeer S. AlSuwaidi et al. 2022</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c410t-2d475c8afe8869aa4e67d3e399c086786c8677062f3d99e27e59bbc90adbedb73</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-7570-0226 ; 0000-0003-4576-4584 ; 0000-0002-2795-6366 ; 0000-0002-5355-2269</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9482527/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9482527/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,4024,27923,27924,27925,53791,53793</link.rule.ids></links><search><contributor>Zhang, Xiao Lei</contributor><contributor>Xiao Lei Zhang</contributor><creatorcontrib>AlSuwaidi, Ghadeer S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alshali, Ruwaida Z.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salim, Nesreen A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Satterthwaite, Julian D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Silikas, Nick</creatorcontrib><title>The Effect of Simulated Chewing on the Surface Roughness of Direct and Indirect Resin-Composites Opposed by Zirconia: An In Vitro Study</title><title>BioMed research international</title><description>Purpose. To assess the surface roughness of two different light-cured resin-composites when opposed by monolithic zirconia after simulated mastication. Materials and Methods. Materials included a direct restorative nanohybrid (n=10) and an indirect microhybrid (n=10) resin-composite (Tetric EvoCeram and Sinfony, respectively). The antagonist material was 3 mol% yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystalline ceramic. Each material was subjected to in vitro chewing against zirconia using a chewing simulator for 250,000 cycles. A 3D profilometer was used to assess the surface roughness parameters of each resin-composite before and after the simulated chewing. Independent t-test and paired sample t-test were performed to compare roughness values for both materials and to compare baseline and after chewing simulation values (p=0.05). Results. Sinfony showed significantly greater roughness values compared to Tetric EvoCeram (p≤0.025) before and after simulated chewing, except for Sa and Sv parameters after simulated chewing where the difference between the two materials was insignificant (p=0.06 and 0.89, respectively). Surface roughness increased for both materials after simulated chewing compared to baseline values, but the difference was insignificant (p≥0.065). However, Sa (p=0.04) and Sv (p=0.012) for Tetric EvoCeram were significantly higher after compared to before chewing simulation. Conclusion. Tetric EvoCeram had a smoother surface than Sinfony before and after simulated chewing. Surface roughness for both materials was higher after simulated chewing compared to baseline values which represent surface damage that was significant for Tetric EvoCeram while Sinfony showed better resistance.</description><subject>Chewing</subject><subject>Composite materials</subject><subject>Dental acrylic resins</subject><subject>Dental crowns</subject><subject>Dental resins</subject><subject>Enamel</subject><subject>Laboratories</subject><subject>Light</subject><subject>Mastication</subject><subject>Mechanical properties</subject><subject>Parameters</subject><subject>Polymerization</subject><subject>Profilometers</subject><subject>Resins</subject><subject>Simulation</subject><subject>Surface roughness</subject><subject>Teeth</subject><subject>Testing</subject><subject>Tetragonal zirconia</subject><subject>Yttria-stabilized zirconia</subject><subject>Yttrium oxide</subject><subject>Zirconia</subject><subject>Zirconium oxide</subject><issn>2314-6133</issn><issn>2314-6141</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>RHX</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kc9u1DAQxiMEEtXSGw9giQsShPpPYjsckFZLgUqVKnULBy6WY082rhJ7sROqfQJeG0e7qoADPozH8m--GfsripcEvyOkri8opvRCcsnrCj8pzigjVclJRZ4-5ow9L85Tusd5ScJxw8-KX3c9oMuuAzOh0KGtG-dBT2DRpocH53coeDRlZDvHThtAt2He9R5SWuiPLi512lt05e3xcAvJ-XITxn1IboKEbvY5y4LtAX130QTv9Hu09rkCfXNTDGg7zfbwonjW6SHB-WlfFV8_Xd5tvpTXN5-vNuvr0lQETyW1laiN1B1IyRutK-DCMmBNY7DkQnKTo8Ccdsw2DVABddO2psHatmBbwVbFh6Pufm5HsAb8FPWg9tGNOh5U0E79feNdr3bhp2oqSWu6CLw-CcTwY4Y0qdElA8OgPYQ5KSryz8qGMJrRV_-g92GOPj9voWrGRC3-oHZ6AOV8F3Jfs4iqtSCSsLrKYVW8PVImhpQidI8jE6wW_9Xivzr5n_E3R7x33uoH93_6N1cUrys</recordid><startdate>2022</startdate><enddate>2022</enddate><creator>AlSuwaidi, Ghadeer S.</creator><creator>Alshali, Ruwaida Z.</creator><creator>Salim, Nesreen A.</creator><creator>Satterthwaite, Julian D.</creator><creator>Silikas, Nick</creator><general>Hindawi</general><general>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</general><general>Hindawi Limited</general><scope>RHU</scope><scope>RHW</scope><scope>RHX</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CWDGH</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7570-0226</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4576-4584</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2795-6366</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5355-2269</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>2022</creationdate><title>The Effect of Simulated Chewing on the Surface Roughness of Direct and Indirect Resin-Composites Opposed by Zirconia: An In Vitro Study</title><author>AlSuwaidi, Ghadeer S. ; Alshali, Ruwaida Z. ; Salim, Nesreen A. ; Satterthwaite, Julian D. ; Silikas, Nick</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c410t-2d475c8afe8869aa4e67d3e399c086786c8677062f3d99e27e59bbc90adbedb73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Chewing</topic><topic>Composite materials</topic><topic>Dental acrylic resins</topic><topic>Dental crowns</topic><topic>Dental resins</topic><topic>Enamel</topic><topic>Laboratories</topic><topic>Light</topic><topic>Mastication</topic><topic>Mechanical properties</topic><topic>Parameters</topic><topic>Polymerization</topic><topic>Profilometers</topic><topic>Resins</topic><topic>Simulation</topic><topic>Surface roughness</topic><topic>Teeth</topic><topic>Testing</topic><topic>Tetragonal zirconia</topic><topic>Yttria-stabilized zirconia</topic><topic>Yttrium oxide</topic><topic>Zirconia</topic><topic>Zirconium oxide</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>AlSuwaidi, Ghadeer S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alshali, Ruwaida Z.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salim, Nesreen A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Satterthwaite, Julian D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Silikas, Nick</creatorcontrib><collection>Hindawi Publishing Complete</collection><collection>Hindawi Publishing Subscription Journals</collection><collection>Hindawi Publishing Open Access Journals</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database (1962 - current)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Middle East & Africa Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>BioMed research international</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>AlSuwaidi, Ghadeer S.</au><au>Alshali, Ruwaida Z.</au><au>Salim, Nesreen A.</au><au>Satterthwaite, Julian D.</au><au>Silikas, Nick</au><au>Zhang, Xiao Lei</au><au>Xiao Lei Zhang</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Effect of Simulated Chewing on the Surface Roughness of Direct and Indirect Resin-Composites Opposed by Zirconia: An In Vitro Study</atitle><jtitle>BioMed research international</jtitle><date>2022</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>2022</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>8686540</spage><epage>8686540</epage><pages>8686540-8686540</pages><issn>2314-6133</issn><eissn>2314-6141</eissn><abstract>Purpose. To assess the surface roughness of two different light-cured resin-composites when opposed by monolithic zirconia after simulated mastication. Materials and Methods. Materials included a direct restorative nanohybrid (n=10) and an indirect microhybrid (n=10) resin-composite (Tetric EvoCeram and Sinfony, respectively). The antagonist material was 3 mol% yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystalline ceramic. Each material was subjected to in vitro chewing against zirconia using a chewing simulator for 250,000 cycles. A 3D profilometer was used to assess the surface roughness parameters of each resin-composite before and after the simulated chewing. Independent t-test and paired sample t-test were performed to compare roughness values for both materials and to compare baseline and after chewing simulation values (p=0.05). Results. Sinfony showed significantly greater roughness values compared to Tetric EvoCeram (p≤0.025) before and after simulated chewing, except for Sa and Sv parameters after simulated chewing where the difference between the two materials was insignificant (p=0.06 and 0.89, respectively). Surface roughness increased for both materials after simulated chewing compared to baseline values, but the difference was insignificant (p≥0.065). However, Sa (p=0.04) and Sv (p=0.012) for Tetric EvoCeram were significantly higher after compared to before chewing simulation. Conclusion. Tetric EvoCeram had a smoother surface than Sinfony before and after simulated chewing. Surface roughness for both materials was higher after simulated chewing compared to baseline values which represent surface damage that was significant for Tetric EvoCeram while Sinfony showed better resistance.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Hindawi</pub><doi>10.1155/2022/8686540</doi><tpages>1</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7570-0226</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4576-4584</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2795-6366</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5355-2269</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 2314-6133 |
| ispartof | BioMed research international, 2022, Vol.2022 (1), p.8686540-8686540 |
| issn | 2314-6133 2314-6141 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9482527 |
| source | Wiley Open Access; PubMed Central; Alma/SFX Local Collection; PubMed Central Open Access |
| subjects | Chewing Composite materials Dental acrylic resins Dental crowns Dental resins Enamel Laboratories Light Mastication Mechanical properties Parameters Polymerization Profilometers Resins Simulation Surface roughness Teeth Testing Tetragonal zirconia Yttria-stabilized zirconia Yttrium oxide Zirconia Zirconium oxide |
| title | The Effect of Simulated Chewing on the Surface Roughness of Direct and Indirect Resin-Composites Opposed by Zirconia: An In Vitro Study |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T17%3A14%3A36IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Effect%20of%20Simulated%20Chewing%20on%20the%20Surface%20Roughness%20of%20Direct%20and%20Indirect%20Resin-Composites%20Opposed%20by%20Zirconia:%20An%20In%20Vitro%20Study&rft.jtitle=BioMed%20research%20international&rft.au=AlSuwaidi,%20Ghadeer%20S.&rft.date=2022&rft.volume=2022&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=8686540&rft.epage=8686540&rft.pages=8686540-8686540&rft.issn=2314-6133&rft.eissn=2314-6141&rft_id=info:doi/10.1155/2022/8686540&rft_dat=%3Cgale_pubme%3EA718135481%3C/gale_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2715337572&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A718135481&rfr_iscdi=true |