Purpose: This study assessed the roughness of two injection-molded, thermoplastic materials used for denture bases compared with a polyamide material and compression molded Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) after the adju...Purpose: This study assessed the roughness of two injection-molded, thermoplastic materials used for denture bases compared with a polyamide material and compression molded Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) after the adjustment and re-polishing with either a laboratory protocol or a chair side protocol. Methods: Forty specimens, each of PMMA, Valplast, DuraFlex, Dura Cetal were fabricated and finished according to individual manufactures’ instructions. These materials were adjusted with tungsten carbide (TC) burs to mimic gross adjustments, and then re-polished either on a lathe or bonded silicon carbide (B-SC). Following instrumentation, the specimens were assessed using contact profilometry and scanning electron microscopy. Two-factor ANOVA was used to determine significant differences in mean surface roughness (Ra and Rmax), with included factors being material type and re-polishing regimen. Results: Mean Ra values ranged from 0.26 (DuraFlex control) to 1.82 (Valplast adjusted with TC burs). Mean Rmax values ranged from 1.88 (Dura Flex control) to 13.76 (Valplast adjusted with TC burs). Two-factor ANOVA revealed that interaction of both factors was significant (p Ra and Rmax. There was a statistically significant increase in both Ra (p Rmax (p < 0.05) for all material types following the gross adjustment. With the exception of DuraFlex, re-polishing of samples that were previously adjusted with TC burs, on the dental lathe produced surfaces that were comparable to control samples. Conclusion: Adjustment of DuraFlex should be kept to a minimum since the adjustment produced the significant surface detriment that could not be corrected with either of the polishing regimens.展开更多
Statement of the problem: Flavored waters have become increasingly popular in the Trinidadian retail market. There is a paucity of literature on the erosive potential of these products on dental hard tissue. Purpose: ...Statement of the problem: Flavored waters have become increasingly popular in the Trinidadian retail market. There is a paucity of literature on the erosive potential of these products on dental hard tissue. Purpose: This study 1) evaluated the pH and titratable acidity of popular still and sparkling flavored waters in the Trinidadian marketplace and 2) evaluated the effect of time and temperature on pH and titratable acidity. Materials and methods: A calibrated pH meter was used to measure pH at baseline (T0), at one week of storage (T1) and at one month of storage (T2). Titratable acidity was determined using 0.1 M sodium hydroxide until a neutral pH of 7 was attained. Results: All tested flavors of both still and sparkling water demonstrated pH well below the critical pH of 5.5. Reduced temperature and time in storage caused varying degrees of change in both pH and titratable acidity. Generally, the largest changes in titratable acidity occurred for sparkling varieties of water. Conclusion: The still and sparkling flavors of water tested are potentially very erosive to dental hard tissue.展开更多
Aim: This study determined whether prior brushing with desensitizing toothpastes (Sensodyne Rapid Relief and Colgate Pro-Relief) affected the shear bond strengths of composite to dentine surfaces after appropriate use...Aim: This study determined whether prior brushing with desensitizing toothpastes (Sensodyne Rapid Relief and Colgate Pro-Relief) affected the shear bond strengths of composite to dentine surfaces after appropriate use of two different dentine bonding agents (SingleBond and PQ-1). Materials and Methods: Sixty caries free molar teeth were cleaned, disinfected and embedded in individual cylinders of polymethylmethracyrlate. The occulsal surfaces were flattened to expose dentine and finished down with 600 grit silicone carbide paper. The teeth were randomly divided into six groups of 10 teeth each. Two groups served as control where dentine surfaces were brushed with pumice slurry. Of the remaining 4 groups, 2 groups were brushed with Sensodyne Rapid Relief and 2 groups brushed with Colgate Pro-Relief. The dentine surfaces were brushed to simulate 2 weeks of twice-daily toothpaste use. The specimens in each of the control groups and experimental groups were subjected to dentine bonding procedures (Single Bond or PQ-1), and application of hybrid composite resin (Z-250) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. A universal material testing machine, with a cross head speed of 0.05 mm/min was used to determine shear bond strengths. Results: Mean shear bond strengths ranged from 5.71 MPa (Colgate pretreatment, composite bonded with Single Bond) to 9.07 MPa (Sensodyne pretreatment, composite bonded with Single Bond). Results showed neither of the main effects, of toothpaste type or bonding agent were significant (p > 0.05) but their interaction was (F = 4.25, p = 0.02). Post hoc analysis showed that teeth brushed with the Sensodyne group, treated with the unfilled dentine bonding agent had a significantly higher bond strength than those treated with the filled dentine bonding agent. Conclusion: The desensitizing toothpastes that use the mechanism of occlusion of open dentinal tubules in the preliminary management of tooth sensitivity should not have an adverse effect on future restorative treatment modalities.展开更多
文摘Purpose: This study assessed the roughness of two injection-molded, thermoplastic materials used for denture bases compared with a polyamide material and compression molded Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) after the adjustment and re-polishing with either a laboratory protocol or a chair side protocol. Methods: Forty specimens, each of PMMA, Valplast, DuraFlex, Dura Cetal were fabricated and finished according to individual manufactures’ instructions. These materials were adjusted with tungsten carbide (TC) burs to mimic gross adjustments, and then re-polished either on a lathe or bonded silicon carbide (B-SC). Following instrumentation, the specimens were assessed using contact profilometry and scanning electron microscopy. Two-factor ANOVA was used to determine significant differences in mean surface roughness (Ra and Rmax), with included factors being material type and re-polishing regimen. Results: Mean Ra values ranged from 0.26 (DuraFlex control) to 1.82 (Valplast adjusted with TC burs). Mean Rmax values ranged from 1.88 (Dura Flex control) to 13.76 (Valplast adjusted with TC burs). Two-factor ANOVA revealed that interaction of both factors was significant (p Ra and Rmax. There was a statistically significant increase in both Ra (p Rmax (p < 0.05) for all material types following the gross adjustment. With the exception of DuraFlex, re-polishing of samples that were previously adjusted with TC burs, on the dental lathe produced surfaces that were comparable to control samples. Conclusion: Adjustment of DuraFlex should be kept to a minimum since the adjustment produced the significant surface detriment that could not be corrected with either of the polishing regimens.
文摘Statement of the problem: Flavored waters have become increasingly popular in the Trinidadian retail market. There is a paucity of literature on the erosive potential of these products on dental hard tissue. Purpose: This study 1) evaluated the pH and titratable acidity of popular still and sparkling flavored waters in the Trinidadian marketplace and 2) evaluated the effect of time and temperature on pH and titratable acidity. Materials and methods: A calibrated pH meter was used to measure pH at baseline (T0), at one week of storage (T1) and at one month of storage (T2). Titratable acidity was determined using 0.1 M sodium hydroxide until a neutral pH of 7 was attained. Results: All tested flavors of both still and sparkling water demonstrated pH well below the critical pH of 5.5. Reduced temperature and time in storage caused varying degrees of change in both pH and titratable acidity. Generally, the largest changes in titratable acidity occurred for sparkling varieties of water. Conclusion: The still and sparkling flavors of water tested are potentially very erosive to dental hard tissue.
文摘Aim: This study determined whether prior brushing with desensitizing toothpastes (Sensodyne Rapid Relief and Colgate Pro-Relief) affected the shear bond strengths of composite to dentine surfaces after appropriate use of two different dentine bonding agents (SingleBond and PQ-1). Materials and Methods: Sixty caries free molar teeth were cleaned, disinfected and embedded in individual cylinders of polymethylmethracyrlate. The occulsal surfaces were flattened to expose dentine and finished down with 600 grit silicone carbide paper. The teeth were randomly divided into six groups of 10 teeth each. Two groups served as control where dentine surfaces were brushed with pumice slurry. Of the remaining 4 groups, 2 groups were brushed with Sensodyne Rapid Relief and 2 groups brushed with Colgate Pro-Relief. The dentine surfaces were brushed to simulate 2 weeks of twice-daily toothpaste use. The specimens in each of the control groups and experimental groups were subjected to dentine bonding procedures (Single Bond or PQ-1), and application of hybrid composite resin (Z-250) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. A universal material testing machine, with a cross head speed of 0.05 mm/min was used to determine shear bond strengths. Results: Mean shear bond strengths ranged from 5.71 MPa (Colgate pretreatment, composite bonded with Single Bond) to 9.07 MPa (Sensodyne pretreatment, composite bonded with Single Bond). Results showed neither of the main effects, of toothpaste type or bonding agent were significant (p > 0.05) but their interaction was (F = 4.25, p = 0.02). Post hoc analysis showed that teeth brushed with the Sensodyne group, treated with the unfilled dentine bonding agent had a significantly higher bond strength than those treated with the filled dentine bonding agent. Conclusion: The desensitizing toothpastes that use the mechanism of occlusion of open dentinal tubules in the preliminary management of tooth sensitivity should not have an adverse effect on future restorative treatment modalities.
