Comparative evaluation of subgingival scaling and polishing techniques on dental material surface roughness.

IF 0.9 4区 医学 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
American journal of dentistry Pub Date : 2023-08-01
Katherine DelPriore, Hoda S Ismail, Brian R Morrow, Anne E Hill, Franklin Garcia-Godoy
{"title":"Comparative evaluation of subgingival scaling and polishing techniques on dental material surface roughness.","authors":"Katherine DelPriore,&nbsp;Hoda S Ismail,&nbsp;Brian R Morrow,&nbsp;Anne E Hill,&nbsp;Franklin Garcia-Godoy","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate and compare the effects of different scaling and polishing techniques on the surface roughness of four different restorative materials.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>72 specimens were prepared, molded to a size of 8.0 by 2.0 mm, and cured according to the manufacturers' instructions. The specimens were stored at 37°C for 24 hours and then thermocycled for 5,000 cycles (from 55°C to 5°C) to simulate 6 months of clinical use. Surface roughness (Ra/average and Rz/max-overall heights) was calculated using a stylus profilometer by subtracting the simulated treatments of hand scaling, ultrasonic scaling, and air polishing from the baseline measurements. The difference in Ra and Rz data were compared independently for each measurement using a two-way ANOVA on Ranks and the Holm-Sidak test, with α< 0.05 used to determine significance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Irrespective of the scaling or polishing technique employed, flowable bulk fill demonstrated the lowest Ra and Rz values. Hand scaling exhibited the highest roughness and variability among the other techniques, regardless of the materials tested (P< 0.001). Air polishing with glycine resulted in the lowest roughness values across all tested materials, with the exception of the tested bioactive restorative material group.</p><p><strong>Clinical significance: </strong>Regarding surface roughness, air polishing with glycine may be an effective and safe intervention for periodontal maintenance of subgingival restorations compared to the other tested scaling methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":7538,"journal":{"name":"American journal of dentistry","volume":"36 4","pages":"207-212"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate and compare the effects of different scaling and polishing techniques on the surface roughness of four different restorative materials.

Methods: 72 specimens were prepared, molded to a size of 8.0 by 2.0 mm, and cured according to the manufacturers' instructions. The specimens were stored at 37°C for 24 hours and then thermocycled for 5,000 cycles (from 55°C to 5°C) to simulate 6 months of clinical use. Surface roughness (Ra/average and Rz/max-overall heights) was calculated using a stylus profilometer by subtracting the simulated treatments of hand scaling, ultrasonic scaling, and air polishing from the baseline measurements. The difference in Ra and Rz data were compared independently for each measurement using a two-way ANOVA on Ranks and the Holm-Sidak test, with α< 0.05 used to determine significance.

Results: Irrespective of the scaling or polishing technique employed, flowable bulk fill demonstrated the lowest Ra and Rz values. Hand scaling exhibited the highest roughness and variability among the other techniques, regardless of the materials tested (P< 0.001). Air polishing with glycine resulted in the lowest roughness values across all tested materials, with the exception of the tested bioactive restorative material group.

Clinical significance: Regarding surface roughness, air polishing with glycine may be an effective and safe intervention for periodontal maintenance of subgingival restorations compared to the other tested scaling methods.

龈下清洁与抛光技术对牙材料表面粗糙度的影响。
目的:评价和比较不同的结垢和抛光技术对四种不同修复材料表面粗糙度的影响。方法:制备72个标本,模制成8.0 × 2.0 mm的尺寸,按照厂家说明进行固化。标本在37℃下保存24小时,然后热循环5000次(从55℃到5℃),以模拟6个月的临床使用。表面粗糙度(Ra/平均值和Rz/最大总高度)使用触控笔轮廓仪通过从基线测量中减去手动缩放、超声波缩放和空气抛光的模拟处理来计算。Ra和Rz数据的差异采用rank的双向方差分析和Holm-Sidak检验进行独立比较,采用α< 0.05确定显著性。结果:无论采用何种结垢或抛光技术,可流动填料的Ra和Rz值最低。无论测试的材料如何,手标度在其他技术中表现出最高的粗糙度和可变性(P< 0.001)。除生物活性修复材料组外,甘氨酸空气抛光的粗糙度值在所有测试材料中最低。临床意义:对于龈下修复体的表面粗糙度,甘氨酸空气抛光与其他测试的洗牙方法相比,可能是一种有效且安全的牙周维护干预措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
American journal of dentistry
American journal of dentistry 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
7.10%
发文量
57
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Dentistry, published by Mosher & Linder, Inc., provides peer-reviewed scientific articles with clinical significance for the general dental practitioner.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信