Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study is to compare the roughness level of the surfaces of polymerized temporary acrylic resin, standard 3D resin, temporary 3D resin materials with polished and unpolished conditions. Methodology: Thirty samples of 1 cm diameter and 5 mm height cylinders of temporary 3D resin (Alias C & B Temp, Dokuz Kimya, İstanbul, Türkiye) and standard 3D resin (Alias Sharp & Rigid, Dokuz Kimya, Dokuz Kimya, İstanbul, Türkiye) were produced with 3D printer (Photon Mono X, Anycubic). Residual resins were cleaned in Wash & Cure Plus (Anycubic) device using isopropyl alcohol and kept under UV light for 10 minutes in the same device to fully polymerize. Self-curing temporary acrylic resin (Imident, Imicryl, Konya, Türkiye) was prepared according to the manufacturer's instructions and 30 samples were prepared by transferring them to moulds of the same size. Half of the samples in each material were polished for 90 seconds with the same dentist using polishing paste (Universal Polishing Paste, Ivoclar Vivadent) (n=15). The surface of each sample was measured three times with a 120˚ angle difference using a profilometer (SJ-201, Mitutoyo, Kanagawa, Japan) and the average was taken. Levene test, t test, two-way ANOVA and Tukey test were used for statistical analysis. A p-value less than 0.05 was accepted for statistical significance. Results: Roughness values 1.9173±0.25078 Ra in the Unpolished Temporary 3D Resin group, 0.2807±0.13317 Ra in the Polished Temporary 3D Resin group, 0.7760±0.17175 Ra in the Unpolished Standard 3B Resin group, 0 in the Polished Standard 3D Resin group It was found to be 0.1887±0.08340 Ra, 2.4827±0.79651 Ra in the Unpolished Cold Acryl group, and 0.6307±0.22118 Ra in the Polished Cold Acryl group. Conclusion: The roughness of 3D printed materials is lower than that of conventional temporary acrylic resin and polishing significantly reduced roughness in all groups. How to cite this article: Servi T, Kölüş T. Evaluation of surface roughness of resin materials with different contents. Int Dent Res 2022;12(Suppl.1):120-3 https://doi.org/10.5577/intdentres.474 Linguistic Revision: The English in this manuscript has been checked by at least two professional editors, both native speakers of English.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call