Logo do repositório

Influence of Different Immersion Solutions and Polishing Protocols on the Roughness of Conventional and CAD/CAM Restorative Materials

dc.contributor.authorLorenzetti, Camila Cruz [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorSilva, Aryvelto Miranda
dc.contributor.authorCastro-Núñez, Gabriela Mariana
dc.contributor.authorViola, Kennia Scapin [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorBortolatto, Janaína Freitas
dc.contributor.authorde Campos, Edson Alves [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorSaad, José Roberto Cury [UNESP]
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
dc.contributor.institutionFederal University of Piauí
dc.contributor.institutionNational University of San Marcos
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of Toronto
dc.date.accessioned2025-04-29T20:03:36Z
dc.date.issued2025-01-01
dc.description.abstractObjective: To evaluate the effects of immersion solutions and polishing protocols on the surface roughness of different restorative materials. Material and Methods: Specimens from composite resin (CR) (Filtek Z350 XT) and CAD-CAM blocks of resin nanoceramic (NC) (Lava Ultimate Restorative), hybrid ceramic (HC) (Enamic), and zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate (ZL) (Celtra Duo) were assigned to two protocols: only polishing rubbers (PR) (Ceramisté rubbers®) or PR + paste (Porcelize®) (PR+P). Surface roughness was measured before (T0), after 30 days (T1), and 60 days (T2) of immersion in solutions of artificial saliva (SA), coffee (CF), and Coca-Cola® (CO). Roughness changes were compared using ANOVA and Tukey test (α=0.05). Results: Time (p≤0.003) and the interaction of time and immersion solution (p≤0.03) significantly affected all materials. The interaction of time, immersion solution, and polishing significantly affected ZL (p=0.003) and NC (p=0.013). The highest surface roughness values were observed with CF solution at T2. Conclusion: Different polishing protocols did not significantly affect the restorative materials tested. The CF solution affected the surface roughness of composite resin and feldspathic-composite hybrid ceramic after 60 days, regardless of the polishing protocol. The effects of immersion solutions and polishing protocols vary and depend on the properties of each restorative material.en
dc.description.affiliationDepartment of Restorative Dentistry School of Dentistry São Paulo State University, SP
dc.description.affiliationGraduate Program in Dentistry Federal University of Piauí, PI
dc.description.affiliationRehabilitative Stomatology of Dentistry Department National University of San Marcos
dc.description.affiliationFaculty of Dentistry University of Toronto
dc.description.affiliationUnespDepartment of Restorative Dentistry School of Dentistry São Paulo State University, SP
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1590/pboci.2025.088
dc.identifier.citationPesquisa Brasileira em Odontopediatria e Clinica Integrada, v. 25.
dc.identifier.doi10.1590/pboci.2025.088
dc.identifier.issn1983-4632
dc.identifier.issn1519-0501
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-86000594607
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11449/305594
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofPesquisa Brasileira em Odontopediatria e Clinica Integrada
dc.sourceScopus
dc.subjectCeramics
dc.subjectComposite Resins
dc.subjectComputer-Aided Design
dc.subjectDental Polishing
dc.subjectSurface Properties
dc.titleInfluence of Different Immersion Solutions and Polishing Protocols on the Roughness of Conventional and CAD/CAM Restorative Materialsen
dc.typeArtigopt
dspace.entity.typePublication
unesp.author.orcid0000-0003-0256-2253[1]
unesp.author.orcid0000-0002-9437-0445[2]
unesp.author.orcid0000-0002-2586-541X[3]
unesp.author.orcid0000-0002-3953-9463[4]
unesp.author.orcid0000-0002-6584-7136[5]
unesp.author.orcid0000-0001-9120-4305[6]
unesp.author.orcid0000-0002-0494-0417[7]

Arquivos

Coleções