PURPOSE: Circumstances exist in which the need to adjust denture base acrylic resins is necessary. This process obviously alters the surface of the polished denture base. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of three chairside polishing kits and conventional polishing on four denture acrylic resins. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four 30 x 30 x 2 mm acrylic resin specimens were fabricated with each of four acrylic resins: autopolymerizing, heat processed, injection molded, and microwaveable. One side was polished conventionally with pumice and polishing compound. The other side was polished with one of three chairside polishing kits: Axis, Brasseler, and Shofu. Each side was evaluated by a Dektak 8 Programmable Stylus Profiler to determine the surface roughness (Ra). RESULTS: One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed that: (1) There was no significant difference in the time it took to polish the specimens with the chairside polishing kits (F=2.118, p=0.14). (2) There was a significant difference in surface roughness between the acrylic resins before any polishing, with the injection-molded and heat-processed being less rough than the autopolymerizing (F=4.588, p=0.005). (3) There was a significant difference in surface roughness between the acrylic resins when conventionally polished, with the injection-molded and microwavable being less rough than the autopolymerizing (F=4.503, p=0.005). Factorial ANOVA revealed that: (1) There was no significant difference in the surface roughness among the chairside polishing kits (F=1.209, p=0.30). (2) There was a significant difference between the acrylic resins, with the heat-processed, injection-molded, and microwaveable being significantly less rough than the autopolymerizing (F=6.610, p=0.0001). (3) There was no significant interaction between the acrylic resins and the chairside polishing kit in the amount of surface roughness (F=1.728, p=0.12). An independent t-test revealed that conventional polishing was significantly smoother than polishing with the chairside polishing kits (t=3.847, p=0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded that time was not a factor in using any of the chairside polishing kits. It is recommended that conventional polishing be used after adjustments to the cameo surface of denture acrylic resin.
PURPOSE: Circumstances exist in which the need to adjust denture base acrylic resins is necessary. This process obviously alters the surface of the polished denture base. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of three chairside polishing kits and conventional polishing on four denture acrylic resins. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four 30 x 30 x 2 mm acrylic resin specimens were fabricated with each of four acrylic resins: autopolymerizing, heat processed, injection molded, and microwaveable. One side was polished conventionally with pumice and polishing compound. The other side was polished with one of three chairside polishing kits: Axis, Brasseler, and Shofu. Each side was evaluated by a Dektak 8 Programmable Stylus Profiler to determine the surface roughness (Ra). RESULTS: One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed that: (1) There was no significant difference in the time it took to polish the specimens with the chairside polishing kits (F=2.118, p=0.14). (2) There was a significant difference in surface roughness between the acrylic resins before any polishing, with the injection-molded and heat-processed being less rough than the autopolymerizing (F=4.588, p=0.005). (3) There was a significant difference in surface roughness between the acrylic resins when conventionally polished, with the injection-molded and microwavable being less rough than the autopolymerizing (F=4.503, p=0.005). Factorial ANOVA revealed that: (1) There was no significant difference in the surface roughness among the chairside polishing kits (F=1.209, p=0.30). (2) There was a significant difference between the acrylic resins, with the heat-processed, injection-molded, and microwaveable being significantly less rough than the autopolymerizing (F=6.610, p=0.0001). (3) There was no significant interaction between the acrylic resins and the chairside polishing kit in the amount of surface roughness (F=1.728, p=0.12). An independent t-test revealed that conventional polishing was significantly smoother than polishing with the chairside polishing kits (t=3.847, p=0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded that time was not a factor in using any of the chairside polishing kits. It is recommended that conventional polishing be used after adjustments to the cameo surface of denture acrylic resin.
Authors: Santoshi V Kumari; M Taruna; B Chittaranjan; Sushendhar M Reddy; Kranti Kiran E Reddy; Ganesh Kulkarni Journal: J Clin Diagn Res Date: 2015-01-01
Authors: Daniela N B Felipucci; Letícia R Davi; Helena F O Paranhos; Osvaldo L Bezzon; Rodrigo F Silva; Fernando Barbosa Junior; Valéria O Pagnano Journal: J Appl Oral Sci Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 2.698