Aysegül Köroğlu1, Onur Sahin1, Doğu Ömür Dede2, Burak Yilmaz3. 1. Assistant Professor, Bülent Ecevit University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Prosthodontics, Zonguldak, Turkey. 2. Assistant Professor, Ordu University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Prosthodontics, Ordu, Turkey. 3. Associate Professor, Division of Restorative Science and Prosthodontics, The Ohio State University, College of Dentistry, Columbus, Ohio. Electronic address: yilmaz.16@osu.edu.
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The effects of surface sealant agents on the surface roughness and color stability of interim crown materials are unknown. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effects of different polishing methods on the surface roughness and color stability of 4 interim crown materials. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 160 specimens were fabricated from 2 poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA; Tab 2000, Dentalon Plus) and 2 bis-acryl (Tempofit, Protemp 4) interim crown materials and divided into 4 groups (n=10) according to applied surface treatment procedures: conventional polishing (control) and 3 surface sealant (Palaseal, Optiglaze, Biscover) coupling methods. Surface roughness (Ra) values were measured with a profilometer. Color parameters were measured with a spectrophotometer before and after staining in coffee. Color differences (CIEDE 2000 [ΔE00]) were calculated. Data were statistically analyzed with 2-way ANOVA and the Tukey honest significant differences test (α=.05). RESULTS: The Ra values of Tempofit with Biscover were significantly lower than their control group, Tab 2000 and Dentalon Plus control groups (P<.05). The highest ΔE00 was calculated for Tempofit control (P<.05). The Dentalon Plus control group had significantly higher ΔE00 values than the other groups, except for the Tempofit and Tab 2000 control groups.The Tab 2000 control ΔE00 was significantly higher than the other groups, except for Dentalon Plus with Palaseal and Dentalon Plus with Optiglaze. CONCLUSIONS: All specimens had a surface roughness higher than the plaque accumulation threshold (0.20 μm). Smoother surfaces were observed for Tempofit with Biscover when compared with theTempofit control. The color change observed with the Dentalon Plus, Tab 2000, and Tempofit control groups was clinically unacceptable. Nonperceivable color changes were seen with Protemp 4 with Optiglaze, Tempofit with Optiglaze, and Tempofit with Biscover. Perceivable but clinically acceptable color changes were observed when sealants were used for all other test groups and Protemp 4 control.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The effects of surface sealant agents on the surface roughness and color stability of interim crown materials are unknown. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effects of different polishing methods on the surface roughness and color stability of 4 interim crown materials. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 160 specimens were fabricated from 2 poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA; Tab 2000, Dentalon Plus) and 2 bis-acryl (Tempofit, Protemp 4) interim crown materials and divided into 4 groups (n=10) according to applied surface treatment procedures: conventional polishing (control) and 3 surface sealant (Palaseal, Optiglaze, Biscover) coupling methods. Surface roughness (Ra) values were measured with a profilometer. Color parameters were measured with a spectrophotometer before and after staining in coffee. Color differences (CIEDE 2000 [ΔE00]) were calculated. Data were statistically analyzed with 2-way ANOVA and the Tukey honest significant differences test (α=.05). RESULTS: The Ra values of Tempofit with Biscover were significantly lower than their control group, Tab 2000 and Dentalon Plus control groups (P<.05). The highest ΔE00 was calculated for Tempofit control (P<.05). The Dentalon Plus control group had significantly higher ΔE00 values than the other groups, except for the Tempofit and Tab 2000 control groups.The Tab 2000 control ΔE00 was significantly higher than the other groups, except for Dentalon Plus with Palaseal and Dentalon Plus with Optiglaze. CONCLUSIONS: All specimens had a surface roughness higher than the plaque accumulation threshold (0.20 μm). Smoother surfaces were observed for Tempofit with Biscover when compared with theTempofit control. The color change observed with the Dentalon Plus, Tab 2000, and Tempofit control groups was clinically unacceptable. Nonperceivable color changes were seen with Protemp 4 with Optiglaze, Tempofit with Optiglaze, and Tempofit with Biscover. Perceivable but clinically acceptable color changes were observed when sealants were used for all other test groups and Protemp 4 control.