Akademik Veri Yönetim Sistemi
Clinical Dentistry and Research, cilt.48, sa.1, ss.3-12, 2024 (Hakemli Dergi)
Purpose: To test the effect of two different prophylactic pastes on the surface roughness and gloss of restorative materials. Materials and Methods: Fifty specimens were prepared using IPS Empress Direct resin-composite and IPS Empress-CAD (Ivoclar/Vivadent) ceramic blocks. Baseline surface roughness and gloss measurements were performed on 10 specimens. The rest of the samples were randomly assigned to four groups: Proxyt Coarse, Proxyt Fine (Ivoclar/Vivadent), Nupro Coarse and Nupro Fine (Dentsply) (n=10). After polishing the specimens, roughness and gloss values were measured. Data were analyzed using One-Way ANOVA and pairwise multiple comparisons at the significance level of p<0.001. Post-hoc Tukey test was used to detect differences between the groups. Results: While no differences in surface roughness, were observed between Nupro Coarse and Nupro Fine on both resin composite and ceramics, statistically significant differences were found between Proxyt Coarse and Proxyt Fine (p<0.001) In terms of gloss, no difference was observed between Nupro Fine and Coarse, while significant difference was detected between Proxyt Coarse and Fine. Decrease in surface gloss of the ceramic was statistically significant for all the paste groups, except Proxyt Fine (p<0.001). Conclusion: The dental prophylaxis paste can affect the surface gloss and roughness for resin composite and ceramics. Pumice-based prophylactic pastes should be used with great caution. Silica based fine grit-size prophylactic pastes provide better and safer choice with minimum surface alterations on restorative materials.