scholarly journals Effect of Surface Sealant on the Surface Roughness of Different Composites and Evaluation of Their Microhardness

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Özge Gürbüz ◽  
Alev Özsoy ◽  
Benin Dikmen ◽  
Meltem Mert Eren ◽  
Aylin Çilingir
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Surface Sealant ◽  
Effect Of Surface

Effect of surface sealant on surface roughness and bacterial adhesion of bulk-fill composites

2021 ◽  
pp. 096739112110055
Author(s):  
Gunce Ozan ◽  
Meltem Mert Eren ◽  
Cansu Vatansever ◽  
Ugur Erdemir
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Bacterial Adhesion ◽  
Confocal Laser ◽  
High Caries Risk ◽  
Two Samples ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Surface Sealants ◽  
Surface Sealant ◽  
Effect Of Surface

Surface sealants are reported to ensure surface smoothness and improve the surface quality of composite restorations. These sealants should also reduce the bacterial adhesion on composite surfaces however, there is not much information regarding their performance on bulk-fill composite materials. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of surface sealant application on surface roughness and bacterial adhesion of various restorative materials. Disc-shaped samples were prepared from a compomer, a conventional composite and three bulk-fill composites. Specimens of each group were divided into two groups (n = 9): with/without surface sealant (Biscover LV, [BLV]). Surface roughness values were examined by profilometry and two samples of each group were examined for bacterial adhesion on a confocal laser scanning microscope (CLSM). Bacterial counts were calculated by both broth cultivation and microscopic images. Results were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Bonferroni/Dunn tests. Following the BLV application, there was a decrease in the surface roughness values of all groups however, only Tetric N-Ceram Bulk and Beautifil-Bulk groups showed significantly smoother surfaces (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences among material groups without BLV application. Evaluating bacterial adhesion after BLV application, conventional composite had the lowest values among all followed by the compomer group. Beautifil-Bulk had significantly the highest bacterial adhesion (p < 0.05), followed by Tetric N-Ceram Bulk group. Without BLV application, there was no significant difference among bacterial adhesion values of groups (p > 0.05). CLSM images showed cell viability in groups. Bulk-fill composites showed higher bacterial adhesion than conventional composite and compomer materials. The surface sealant was found to be highly effective in lowering bacterial adhesion, but not so superior in smoothing the surfaces of restorative materials. So, surface sealants could be used on the restorations of patients with high caries risk.

Effect of Surface Sealants and Polishing Time on Composite Surface Roughness and Microhardness

2018 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 408-415 ◽  
Author(s):  
VC Ruschel ◽  
VS Bona ◽  
LN Baratieri ◽  
HP Maia
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Composite Surface ◽  
Force Microscopy ◽  
Atomic Force ◽  
Surface Sealants ◽  
Post Hoc ◽  
Surface Sealant ◽  
Effect Of Surface

SUMMARY The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of surface sealants and polishing delay time on a nanohybrid resin composite roughness and microhardness. Eighty disc specimens were made with a nanohybrid resin (Esthet-X HD, Dentsply). The specimens were divided into two groups (n=40) according to polishing time: immediate, after 10 minutes; delayed, after 48 hours. Each group was subdivided into four groups (n=10), according to the surface treatment: CG, control–rubber points (Jiffy Polishers, Ultradent); PP, rubber points + surface sealant (PermaSeal, Ultradent); PF, rubber points + surface sealant (Fortify, Bisco); PB, rubber points + surface sealant (BisCover, Bisco). Surface roughness (Ra) and microhardness (50 g/15 seconds) were measured. Surface morphology was analyzed by scanning electron microscopy and atomic force microscopy. The data were analyzed statistically using one-way analysis of variance and the Games-Howell post hoc test (α=0.05). PermaSeal roughness (G2) in the delayed polishing group was significantly higher (p=0.00) than that of the other groups. No difference was observed among the groups between immediate and delayed polishing (p=1.00), except for PermaSeal (p=0.00). Moreover, PermaSeal showed the lowest microhardness values (p=0.00) for immediate polishing. Microhardness was higher at delayed polishing for all the surface treatments (p=0.00) except Fortify (p=0.73). Surface smoothness similar to polishing with rubber points was achieved when surface sealants were used, except for PermaSeal surface sealant, which resulted in a less smooth resin composite surface. However, surface sealant application did not significantly improve composite resin microhardness.

Effect of surface sealant agents on the surface roughness and color stability of denture base materials

2016 ◽  
Vol 116 (4) ◽  
pp. 610-616 ◽  
Author(s):  
Onur Sahin ◽  
Aysegül Koroglu ◽  
Doğu Ömür Dede ◽  
Burak Yilmaz
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Color Stability ◽  
Denture Base ◽  
Base Materials ◽  
Surface Sealant ◽  
Effect Of Surface

scholarly journals Effect of surface sealant on the surface roughness of Different composites and evaluation of their microhardness

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Ozge Gurbuz ◽  
Aylin cilingir ◽  
Benin Dikmen ◽  
Alev Ozsoy ◽  
Meltem Mert Eren
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Surface Sealant ◽  
Effect Of Surface

The effect of surface roughness on AES depth profile.

Shinku ◽  
1987 ◽  
Vol 30 (10) ◽  
pp. 793-798 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masao HIRASAKA ◽  
Masao HASHIBA ◽  
Toshiroh YAMASHINA
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Depth Profile ◽  
Effect Of Surface

Effect of surface roughness on couple stress squeeze film lubrication of long porous partial journal bearings

2006 ◽  
Vol 58 (4) ◽  
pp. 176-186 ◽  
Author(s):  
N.M. Bujurke ◽  
N.B. Naduvinamani ◽  
Syeda Tasneem Fathima ◽  
S.S. Benchalli
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Couple Stress ◽  
Journal Bearings ◽  
Squeeze Film ◽  
Film Lubrication ◽  
Effect Of Surface

Effect of Surface Roughness on Pool Boiling Heat Transfer of Water on a Superhydrophilic Aluminum Surface

2017 ◽  
Vol 139 (10) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jinsub Kim ◽  
Seongchul Jun ◽  
Jungho Lee ◽  
Juan Godinez ◽  
Seung M. You
Keyword(s):  
Heat Transfer ◽  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Boiling Heat Transfer ◽  
Aluminum Surface ◽  
Transfer Coefficients ◽  
Copper Surfaces ◽  
Heat Transfer Coefficients ◽  
Superhydrophilic Surface ◽  
Aluminum Surfaces ◽  
Effect Of Surface

The effect of surface roughness on the pool boiling heat transfer of water was investigated on superhydrophilic aluminum surfaces. The formation of nanoscale protrusions on the aluminum surface was confirmed after immersing it in boiling water, which modified surface wettability to form a superhydrophilic surface. The effect of surface roughness was examined at different average roughness (Ra) values ranging from 0.11 to 2.93 μm. The boiling heat transfer coefficients increased with an increase in roughness owing to the increased number of cavities. However, the superhydrophilic aluminum surfaces exhibited degradation of the heat transfer coefficients when compared with copper surfaces owing to the flooding of promising cavities. The superhydrophilic aluminum surfaces exhibited a higher critical heat flux (CHF) than the copper surfaces. The CHF was 1650 kW/m2 for Ra = 0.11 μm, and it increased to 2150 kW/m2 for Ra = 0.35 μm. Surface roughness is considered to affect CHF as it improves the capillary wicking on the superhydrophilic surface. However, further increase in surface roughness above 0.35 μm did not augment the CHF, even at Ra = 2.93 μm. This upper limit of the CHF appears to result from the hydrodynamic limit on the superhydrophilic surface, because the roughest surface with Ra = 2.93 μm still showed a faster liquid spreading speed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document