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

AIMThe aim of this study was to investigate the surface roughness of different types of flowable restorative resins and compare the effectiveness of diamond finishing burs followed by aluminum oxide discs with aluminum oxide discs alone in producing smooth surfaces.METHODS AND MATERIALSTwenty-four specimens (10 mm X 2 mm) for each flowable resin (flowable microhybrid composite, flowable liquid microhybrid composite, flowable compomer, and flowable ormocer) were fabricated in an acrylic mold and randomly assigned to three groups. In group I samples were left undisturbed after the removal of a Mylar strip (control). In group II samples were polished with diamond finishing burs, followed by aluminum oxide discs. In group III samples were finished with only aluminum oxide discs. The mean surface roughness (Ra, microm) was determined with 3-D non-contact interferometry. Data were subjected to one way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and post hoc comparison was accomplished using Tukey's HSD.RESULTSAlthough significant differences in surface roughness (Ra) values were observed among the materials using a Mylar strip (control), no significant differences between restorative materials were found when all finishing/polishing methods were combined. For all flowable restorative resins tested, the Mylar strip produced surfaces smoother than those produced by a diamond finishing bur followed by a disc or by using discs alone. Surface roughness values were statistically similar for a diamond finishing bur followed by a disc and for disc treated surfaces within each material except for Dyract Flow, a flowable compomer.CONCLUSIONAlthough the surface roughness of flowable restorative resins differs among the types, this difference can be overcome with different finishing/polishing methods.

Three-dimensional Surface Profile Analysis of Different Types of Flowable Restorative Resins Following Different Finishing Protocols