oralpresentation
Description

Title: 0105 - Effect of Prophylactic Pastes on Surface Gloss of Ceramics

Authors:

Thani Alsharari, Nova Southeastern University
Mehdi Garashi, Kuwait Ministry of Health
Patrick Hardigan, Nova Southeastern University
Sibel Antonson (Presenter)
Nova Southeastern University

Abstract:

Objectives: To evaluate the effect of prophylactic pastes on the surface gloss of two commonly used ceramic materials and human enamel.

Methods: A total of forty specimens, composed of two types of ceramics, were prepared to test the hypothesis. Twenty specimens were assigned to each ceramic group: lithium disilicate (LiSi2) (e.max CAD MT, A2, IvoclarVivadent) and feldspathic ceramic (FP) (VITABLOCKS Mark II, A2C, Vita). They were prepared by sectioning the CAD/CAM blocks into 2-mm-thick slices (12x14 mm), and finished/polished gradually down to 1,200 grit size. They were ultrasonically cleaned, dried, and glazed using their respective glazes according to manufacturers’ instructions. Four intact human enamel surfaces (E) served as a control group. Baseline surface gloss was measured with a Glossometer (Novo-Curve, Rhopoint Instruments, East Sussex, UK) from 3 spots on each specimen. Five specimens from each group were randomly assigned to one of the four groups of the following prophylactic polishing pastes: Proxyt coarse/fine (PC/PF) (IvoclarVivadent), Nupro coarse/fine (NC/NF) (Dentsply). They were applied to the specimens by a calibrated/blind operator using un-impregnated prophylactic cups according to the manufacturers’ instructions for 40s (10 second intervals) under a constant load of 400gr at 3,000rpm. Surface gloss of the specimens were re-measured. A mixed, general linear model was used for statistics, and significance was accepted at p <0.05. Post-hoc comparisons were conducted using Tukey test.

Results: A significant difference was found between ceramic surfaces [F(2, 32) = 17.71, p = 0.041, η2 = 8%] and prophy pastes [F(3, 32) = 76.37, p < 0.001, η2 = 40%], but no difference between the interaction of material by prophylactic pastes [F(6,32) = 1.04, p = 0.416, η2 = 5%]. Reviewing the effect size estimates (eta-squared) indicates that prophylactic paste had the greatest effect on gloss.

Conclusions: Nupro Coarse reduced gloss significantly on all materials, particularly on LiSi2. Proxyt Fine reduced the least amount of gloss on all surfaces, particularly on enamel.

Image(s):

Download Image 1

Table(s):

Substrate Prophylactic Paste Mean Gloss Difference Significance
E PF -0.8 a
FP PF -1.25 a
FP NF -1.39 a
LiSi2 PF -1.74 a
LiSi2 NF -2.08 a
FP PC -2.21 a
E NF -2.63 ab
FP NC -3.29 ab
LiSi2 PC -3.41 ab
E PC -3.83 ab
E NC -4.43 ab
LiSi2 NC -6.23 b

Disclosure Statement:
The submitter must disclose the names of the organizations with which any author have a relationship, the nature of the relationship, and the clinical or research area involved. The following is submitted: NONE

Tags