Abstract

This study evaluated the surface topography and bacterial adhesion of a different hybrid ceramics and resin composites after optimal surface finishes. A total of disk samples were prepared using two different CAD/CAM blocks [Vita Enamic (VE), Shofu HC (SHC)] and two different composites [Tetric N Ceram bulk-fill (TNC), Estelite Sigma Quick (ESQ)] with diameter 10 mm and thickness 4.0 ± 0.2mm. Fifteen disc samples were produced for each group (n=15). Surfaces of the sample disks were polished according to the manufacturer’s recommendations with the specially produced polish sets. The surface roughness of specimens was analyzed parameter (Ra), sterilized, and subjected to bacterial adhesion. Data were submitted to one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test (α= 0.05). TNC and ESQ groups had lower surface roughness than VE and SHC groups (p<0.05). There was no difference in bacterial adhesion between hybrid CAD/CAM blocks and composite materials. The material type and surface finishing system did not significantly interfere with surface roughness parameters and bacterial adhesion. The surface polishing of nanocomposite resins performed is better than hybrid ceramic after polishing. An adequate finishing/polishing technique should always be applied after any adjustments made to indirect restorations with these materials tested. There is no difference between bacterial adhesions of the tested materials. If appropriate and sufficient, polishing is performed.

Highlights

  • A wide variety of restorative materials can be used in the construction of fixed and removable prostheses applied to restore the lost functionality and aesthetics due to dental deficiencies

  • Some of the systems; feldspathic ceramics, lithium disilicate based ceramics, hybrid ceramics, resin-modified nanoceramic, lithium silicate ceramics reinforced with zirconia and monolithic zirconia can be listed [2]

  • The surface roughness values of the samples prepared from tested materials were compared statistically, and significant differences were found between the groups (p

Read more

Summary

Introduction

A wide variety of restorative materials can be used in the construction of fixed and removable prostheses applied to restore the lost functionality and aesthetics due to dental deficiencies They are an alternative to metal-ceramic systems and have more aesthetic results [1]. Some of the systems; feldspathic ceramics, lithium disilicate based ceramics, hybrid ceramics, resin-modified nanoceramic, lithium silicate ceramics reinforced with zirconia and monolithic zirconia can be listed [2]. Due to their superior aesthetic properties and biological compatibility; Inlay, onlay, laminate veneer, crown prosthesis, especially in the production of anterior region implant-supported restorations, are widely used [3]. In addition to the aesthetic and mechanical properties of the restorative materials used, their biological compatibility and adhesion of microorganisms are important [4]

Methods
Results
Conclusion
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