Elif Beril Gurdogan1, Didem Ozdemir-Ozenen1, Nuket Sandalli1. 1. Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Yeditepe University Faculty of Dentistry, Bagdat Caddesi No: 238, zip code: 34728, Goztepe, Kadikoy, Istanbul, Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the surface roughness via atomic force microscopy (AFM) as well as to evaluate the microhardness values of Icon® in comparison with sound and demineralized enamel in a large subject group. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Enamel samples were prepared from sound bovine incisors and randomly allocated into either AFM (n = 60) or microhardness (n = 60) groups. The AFM group was divided into control (n = 30) and Icon® (n = 30) subgroups. The microhardness group was also divided into three subgroups: control (n = 20), demineralization (n = 20) and Icon® (n = 20) groups. The demineralization and Icon® subgroups were subjected to a demineralizing solution (pH: 4, 2 hours). Following the formation of shallow white spot lesions and application of the infiltrant, each sample was examined according to its parameter. RESULTS: AFM images suggested that Icon® had a significantly rougher surface than the control group. When the AFM results were evaluated numerically, it was evident that the Icon® group possessed statistically higher Sa, Sq, mean height, and maximum deviation values compared to the control group. The mean Vickers hardness values of all groups were determined to be significantly different from one another. Hardness values in the demineralization group were determined to be significantly lower than the control and Icon® groups. No statistically significant difference was observed between mean Vickers hardness values for the contol and Icon® groups. CONCLUSIONS: The present in vitro study shows that more studies are required to improve the surface quality of this infiltrant material. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The present in vitro study shows that the resin infiltration technique results in increased microhardness of demineralized enamel. However, it was observed that the infiltrant material creates a significantly rougher surface compared to healthy, untreated enamel. (J Esthet Restor Dent 29:201-208, 2017).
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the surface roughness via atomic force microscopy (AFM) as well as to evaluate the microhardness values of Icon® in comparison with sound and demineralized enamel in a large subject group. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Enamel samples were prepared from sound bovine incisors and randomly allocated into either AFM (n = 60) or microhardness (n = 60) groups. The AFM group was divided into control (n = 30) and Icon® (n = 30) subgroups. The microhardness group was also divided into three subgroups: control (n = 20), demineralization (n = 20) and Icon® (n = 20) groups. The demineralization and Icon® subgroups were subjected to a demineralizing solution (pH: 4, 2 hours). Following the formation of shallow white spot lesions and application of the infiltrant, each sample was examined according to its parameter. RESULTS: AFM images suggested that Icon® had a significantly rougher surface than the control group. When the AFM results were evaluated numerically, it was evident that the Icon® group possessed statistically higher Sa, Sq, mean height, and maximum deviation values compared to the control group. The mean Vickers hardness values of all groups were determined to be significantly different from one another. Hardness values in the demineralization group were determined to be significantly lower than the control and Icon® groups. No statistically significant difference was observed between mean Vickers hardness values for the contol and Icon® groups. CONCLUSIONS: The present in vitro study shows that more studies are required to improve the surface quality of this infiltrant material. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The present in vitro study shows that the resin infiltration technique results in increased microhardness of demineralized enamel. However, it was observed that the infiltrant material creates a significantly rougher surface compared to healthy, untreated enamel. (J Esthet Restor Dent 29:201-208, 2017).
Authors: Omar Abd El Sadek El Meligy; Najlaa Mohammed Alamoudi; Shimaa Tag Eldin Ibrahim; Osama Mahmood Felemban; Amani Ahmed Al-Tuwirqi Journal: J Dent Sci Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 2.080