The effects of polishing technique and brushing on the surface roughness of acrylic resin.
10.4047/jkap.2010.48.4.287
- Author:
Ju Ri LEE
1
;
Cheol Ho JEONG
;
Jung Han CHOI
;
Jae Woong HWANG
;
Dong Hwan LEE
Author Information
1. Department of Prosthodontics, Seoul St. Mary's Dental Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Brushing;
Polishing;
Polymethyl methacrylate;
Surface roughness
- MeSH:
Atmospheric Pressure;
Dentures;
Polymerization;
Polymers;
Polymethyl Methacrylate;
Rubber;
Silicates;
Tooth;
Ultrasonics
- From:The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
2010;48(4):287-293
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: This study evaluated the effect of polishing techniques on surface roughness of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), as well as the influence of light-cured surface glaze and subsequent brushing on surface roughness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 60 PMMA specimens (10x10x5 mm) were made and then divided into 6 groups of 10 each according to the polymerization methods (under pressure or atmosphere) and the surface polishing methods (mechanical or chemical polishing) including 2 control groups. The mechanical polishing was performed with the carbide denture bur, rubber points and then pumice and lathe wheel. The chemical polishing was performed by applying a light-cured surface glaze (Plaquit(R); Dreve-Dentamid GmbH). Accura 2000(R), a non-contact, non-destructive, optical 3-dimensional surface analysis system, was used to measure the surface roughness (Ra) and 3-dimensional images were acquired. The surface roughness was again measured after ultrasonic tooth brushing in order to evaluate the influence of brushing on the surface roughness. The statistical analysis was performed with Mann-Whitney test and t-test using a 95% level of confidence. RESULTS: The chemically polished group showed a statistically lower mean surface roughness in comparison to the mechanically polished group (P = .0045) and the specimens polymerized under the atmospheric pressure presented a more significant difference (P = .0138). After brushing, all of the groups, except the mechanically polished group, presented rougher surfaces and showed no statistically significant differences between groups. CONCLUSION: Although the surface roughness increased after brushing, the chemical polishing technique presented an improved surface condition in comparison to the mechanical polishing technique.