English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The aim of the study was to compare surface loss values after erosion—abrasion cycles obtained with modified surface microhardness measurement (mSMH), focus variation 3D microscopy (FVM) and contact stylus profilometry (CSP). We cut human molars into buccal and lingual halves, embedded them in resin and ground 200 μm of enamel away. The resulting surfaces were polished. To maintain a reference area, we applied Block-Out resin to partly cover the enamel surface. The samples were incubated in artificial saliva (37°C; 1 h), then rinsed in deionized water (10 s) and dried with oil-free air (5 s). We immersed the specimens individually in 30 mL citric acid (1%, pH 3.6) for 2 min (25°C, 70 rpm dynamic conditions) before brushing them (50 strokes, 200 g) in an automatic brushing machine with toothpaste-slurry. We calculated the surface loss as per mSMH, by re-measuring the length of the same six indentations made before the abrasive challenge. The experiment consisted of five experimental groups that received between 2 and 10 erosion—abrasion cycles. Each group contained 15 specimens and samples in groups 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 underwent a total of 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 cycles, respectively. The resin was removed from the reference area in one piece under 10× magnification and the FVM and CSP were performed. Agreement between the methods was calculated with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and depicted in Bland-Altman plots. All methods presented a linear pattern of surface loss measurements throughout the experiment, leading overall to a strong, statistically significant correlation between the methods (ICC = 0.85; p<0.001). So, despite the different surface loss values, all methods presented consistent results for surface loss measurement.

plos one

In vitro evaluation of modified surface microhardness measurement, focus variation 3D microscopy and contact stylus profilometry to assess enamel surface loss after erosive–abrasive challenges