Open AccessSurface Roughness Analysis of Dental Ceramics Treated with Hydrofluoric Acid and Aluminum Oxide Jet
Author(s) -
Mateus Rodrigues Tonetto,
Álvaro Henrique Borges,
Edson Alves de Campos,
Matheus Coêlho Bandéca,
Thiago Soares Porto,
Camila Cruz Lorenzetti,
Sizenando Toledo Porto Neto,
W Dinelli
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
world journal of dentistry
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.166
H-Index - 10
eISSN - 0976-6014
pISSN - 0976-6006
DOI - 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1248
Subject(s) - hydrofluoric acid , materials science , surface roughness , ceramic , aluminum oxide , surface finish , composite material , mineralogy , aluminium , metallurgy , chemistry
The aim of this study was to evaluate the surface roughness of 5 indirect restorative materials treated with hydrofluoric acid to 10%, with aluminum oxide jet and a combination of both. The specimens was prepared with 10 mm in diameter and 2 mm thickness, divided into fi ve groups: (1) Ceromer (CeseadII-Kuraray), (2) Leucite crystals ceramics (IPS EmpressIIIvoclarforcasket), (3) glass ceramic with fluorapatite (IPS D. Sign-Ivoclar), (4) lithium disilicate ceramic (IPS Empress II-Ivoclar restorations), (5) ceramics (Cergogold-Degussa). For all groups were performed the controls, and the surfaces with the 3 types of treatment. For testing roughness used the rugosimeter Taylor/Hobson-Precision, model form tracerSV-C525 high sensitivity. After confi rmation of variance analysis with a signifi cance level of 1% (p < 0.01), there was equality between the average roughness of materials from groups 1, 3 and 5, and the group 2 was different from the others. It was also found that the ceramics of the group 5 behaved similar to group 4. However the lowest average roughness was observed in group 2 ceramic. In the evaluation between the types of treatment, the aluminum oxide jet and associations and blasting with hydrofl uoric acid were similar, and different isolated hydrofl uoric acid, and 3 types of treatment signifi cantly higher than the control group. All treatments promoted superfi cial alterations in all tested materials