PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to test the effect of brushing on surface roughness of two resilient liners (Luci Sof and Sofreliner) compared with an acrylic resin (QC 20). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty specimens of each material were prepared (25 mm x 14 mm x 3 mm). Ten specimens served as controls and were stored in distilled water and not brushed. The remaining ten specimens were subjected to mechanical brushing, using an MSEt plus machine to simulate brushing at a rate of 5.0 strokes per second (30,000 cycles). Surface roughness measurements were recorded before and after brushing. Random samples were analyzed using scanning electron microscope. Data collected were analyzed by a two-way analysis of variance using material and treatment as variables, followed by Tukey's test (alpha= 0.05). RESULTS: Initial surface roughness of materials indicated that QC 20 was the smoothest (0.13 microm), and Luci Sof the roughest (0.68 mum). Sofreliner had an intermediate value (0.31 microm). All materials were significantly different. Mechanical brushing significantly increased surface roughness in all the materials. Although there was no statistical difference between QC 20 and Luci Sof after mechanical brushing (0.88 and 1.00 microm, respectively), both differed significantly from Sofreliner (7.74 microm). CONCLUSION: The two resilient liners and the acrylic resin became rougher, to a greater or lesser extent, when subjected to mechanical brushing.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to test the effect of brushing on surface roughness of two resilient liners (Luci Sof and Sofreliner) compared with an acrylic resin (QC 20). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty specimens of each material were prepared (25 mm x 14 mm x 3 mm). Ten specimens served as controls and were stored in distilled water and not brushed. The remaining ten specimens were subjected to mechanical brushing, using an MSEt plus machine to simulate brushing at a rate of 5.0 strokes per second (30,000 cycles). Surface roughness measurements were recorded before and after brushing. Random samples were analyzed using scanning electron microscope. Data collected were analyzed by a two-way analysis of variance using material and treatment as variables, followed by Tukey's test (alpha= 0.05). RESULTS: Initial surface roughness of materials indicated that QC 20 was the smoothest (0.13 microm), and Luci Sof the roughest (0.68 mum). Sofreliner had an intermediate value (0.31 microm). All materials were significantly different. Mechanical brushing significantly increased surface roughness in all the materials. Although there was no statistical difference between QC 20 and Luci Sof after mechanical brushing (0.88 and 1.00 microm, respectively), both differed significantly from Sofreliner (7.74 microm). CONCLUSION: The two resilient liners and the acrylic resin became rougher, to a greater or lesser extent, when subjected to mechanical brushing.