Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

Surface roughness and cutting efficiency of composite finishing instruments.

Authors: M, Jung;

Surface roughness and cutting efficiency of composite finishing instruments.

Abstract

Trimming composite restorations includes gross removal of excess material, contouring, and finishing. Many surfaces such as the lingual surface of anterior teeth or the occlusal surfaces of posterior teeth require the use of rigid rotating instruments. The purpose of our study was to assess the suitability of eight finishing diamonds, five tungsten carbide finishing burs, and one ceramically coated finishing instrument for trimming a small-particle hybrid composite material. A total of 70 specimens of Herculite XRV were treated with the different finishing instruments under simulated practice conditions, and surface roughness was recorded quantitatively using an optical laser pick-up. The resulting surfaces were examined qualitatively with the help of scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Cutting efficiency of the diamonds and burs was evaluated at a constant pressure of 2.5 N using 42 additional specimens of Herculite XRV. Significant differences were calculated using one-way ANOVA and pairwise contrasts by Tukey's multiple range test. The results showed that finishing diamonds were characterized by high cutting efficiency and relatively rough corresponding composite surfaces, whereas tungsten carbide finishing burs led to smooth composite surfaces but had little cutting efficiency. For gross removal and contouring of composite restorations, a 15-40 microns finishing diamond is recommended followed by a tungsten carbide bur for finishing the restoration.

Related Organizations
Keywords

Analysis of Variance, Dental Instruments, Surface Properties, Aluminum Oxide, Microscopy, Electron, Scanning, Equipment Design, Diamond, Tungsten Compounds, Dental Polishing, Resin Cements

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    36
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
36
Top 10%
Top 10%
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!