Surface roughness of enamel and four resin composites

Registro completo de metadados
MetadadosDescriçãoIdioma
Autor(es): dc.contributorUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)-
Autor(es): dc.contributorCase Western Reserve School of Dental Medicine-
Autor(es): dc.contributorUniversidade Federal de São Carlos (UFSCar)-
Autor(es): dc.contributorDental Consultants, Inc.-
Autor(es): dc.creatorBotta, Ana Carolina-
Autor(es): dc.creatorDuarte Jr., Sillas-
Autor(es): dc.creatorPaulin Filho, Pedro Iris-
Autor(es): dc.creatorGheno, Simoni Maria-
Autor(es): dc.creatorPowers, John M.-
Data de aceite: dc.date.accessioned2025-08-21T16:02:28Z-
Data de disponibilização: dc.date.available2025-08-21T16:02:28Z-
Data de envio: dc.date.issued2022-04-28-
Data de envio: dc.date.issued2022-04-28-
Data de envio: dc.date.issued2009-10-01-
Fonte completa do material: dc.identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/225787-
Fonte: dc.identifier.urihttp://educapes.capes.gov.br/handle/11449/225787-
Descrição: dc.descriptionPurpose: To assess surface roughness of resin composites submitted to different polishing techniques compared to intact human enamel. Methods: Nanofilled (Filtek Supreme XT), microhybrid (Point 4), hybrid (Tetric Ceram), and microfilled (Durafill VS) resin composites were selected. Four polishing techniques were tested (TO: Mylar matrix - control; T1: aluminum oxide discs; T2: felt + diamond paste; T3: aluminum oxide discs + felt + diamond paste) with each resin composite. The specimens were assigned to 16 experimental groups and one control group (n=4). Flat buccal surfaces of four human maxillary central incisors were used for the analysis of enamel roughness and served as control. The mean roughness was evaluated under atomic force microscopy in the contact mode. The obtained data were submitted to Student's t-test, ANOVA, and Tukey's Test, at 0.05 level of significance. Results: The roughness of enamel was 46.6 ±10.7 nm. The smoothest surface was obtained for the Mylar matrix with nanofiller (23.6 ±3.0 nm), microhybrid (12.8 ±1.4 nm), or hybrid resin (15.2 ±1.9 nm). Microfilled resin showed the lowest roughness with aluminum oxide discs (43.0 ±5.2 nm). Diamond paste increased the roughness of composites, whereas aluminum oxide discs yielded the smoothest surfaces.-
Descrição: dc.descriptionDepartment of Restorative Dentistry São José Dos Campos School of Dentistry São Paulo State University (UNESP), São Paulo-
Descrição: dc.descriptionDepartment of Comprehensive Care Case Western Reserve School of Dental Medicine, Cleveland, OH-
Descrição: dc.descriptionDepartment of Materials Engineering Federal University of São Carlos, São Carlos, São Paulo-
Descrição: dc.descriptionDental Consultants, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI-
Descrição: dc.descriptionDepartment of Restorative Dentistry São José Dos Campos School of Dentistry São Paulo State University (UNESP), São Paulo-
Formato: dc.format252-254-
Idioma: dc.languageen-
Relação: dc.relationAmerican Journal of Dentistry-
???dc.source???: dc.sourceScopus-
Título: dc.titleSurface roughness of enamel and four resin composites-
Tipo de arquivo: dc.typelivro digital-
Aparece nas coleções:Repositório Institucional - Unesp

Não existem arquivos associados a este item.