|
| ORIGINAL RESEARCH |
 |
|
|
| Year : 2014 |
Volume
: 25 | Issue : 3 | Page
: 290-293 |
|
Evaluation of the effect of different methods of microabrasion and polishing on surface roughness of dental enamel
Carlos Bertoldo, Debora Lima, Larissa Fragoso, Glaucia Ambrosano, Flavio Aguiar, Jose Lovadino
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Piracicaba Dental School / University of Campinas, UNICAMP, Brazil
Correspondence Address:
Debora Lima
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Piracicaba Dental School / University of Campinas, UNICAMP
Brazil
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/0970-9290.138308
|
|
|
Description of the Technique: The microabrasion technique of enamel consists of selectively abrading the discolored areas or causing superficial structural changes in a selective way.
Objective: In microabrasion technique, abrasive products associated with acids are used, and the evaluation of enamel roughness after this treatment, as well as surface polishing, is necessary. This in-vitro study evaluated the enamel roughness after microabrasion, followed by different polishing techniques.
Settings and Design: Roughness analyses were performed before microabrasion (L1), after microabrasion (L2), and after polishing (L3).Thus, 60 bovine incisive teeth divided into two groups were selected (n=30): G1- 37% phosphoric acid (37%) (Dentsply) and pumice; G2- hydrochloric acid (6.6%) associated with silicon carbide (Opalustre - Ultradent). Thereafter, the groups were divided into three sub-groups (n=10), according to the system of polishing: A - Fine and superfine granulation aluminum oxide discs (SofLex 3M); B - Diamond Paste (FGM) associated with felt discs (FGM); C - Silicone tips (Enhance - Dentsply). A PROC MIXED procedure was applied after data exploratory analysis, as well as the Tukey-Kramer test (5%).
Results: No statistical differences were found between G1 and G2 groups. L2 differed statistically from L1 and showed superior amounts of roughness. Differences in the amounts of post-polishing roughness for specific groups (1A, 2B, and 1C) arose, which demonstrated less roughness in L3 and differed statistically from L2 in the polishing system.
Conclusion: All products increased enamel roughness, and the effectiveness of the polishing systems was dependent upon the abrasive used. |
|
|
|
| [FULL TEXT] [PDF]* |
|
 |
|
Users online:
