Basit öğe kaydını göster

dc.contributor.authorGüngör, Hasan
dc.contributor.authorGündoğdu, Mustafa
dc.contributor.authorDuymuş, Zeynep Yeşil
dc.date.accessioned2020-12-19T19:59:00Z
dc.date.available2020-12-19T19:59:00Z
dc.date.issued2014
dc.identifier.citationGungor, H., Gundogdu, M., Duymus, Z.Y. (2014). Investigation of the effect of different polishing techniques on the surface roughness of denture base and repair materials. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 112(5), 1271-1277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.03.023en_US
dc.identifier.issn0022-3913
dc.identifier.issn1097-6841
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.03.023
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11436/3030
dc.descriptionGundogdu, Mustafa/0000-0003-2527-0392en_US
dc.descriptionWOS: 000350618500034en_US
dc.descriptionPubMed: 24853341en_US
dc.description.abstractStatement of problem. the rough surface of denture base materials may cause plaque accumulation and staining. Thus, the effectiveness of polishing techniques should be known. Purpose. the purpose of this study was to compare the effects of chairside polishing kits and conventional laboratory techniques on the surface roughness of denture base and repair materials. Material and methods. Ninety-six specimens, 50 +/- 1 mm in diameter and 0.5 +/- 0.05 thick, were fabricated from heat-polymerized acrylic resin (HP), polyamide resin (PR), and autopolymerizing resin (AP) and submitted to grinding with a tungsten carbide bur. the specimens were divided into 4 groups according to the polishing technique used: control group without polishing, conventional laboratory polishing, polished with Acrylic Polisher HP blue kit, and polished with AcryPoint polishing kit. Surface roughness (R-a) was measured after polishing with a profilometer. Data were analyzed with a 2-way analysis of variance, and the Tukey honestly significant difference (HSD) test was performed to identify significant differences (alpha=.05). Results. the polishing techniques significantly affected the R-a of denture base materials (P<.001). the highest mean average R-a was measured for the control group. the lowest R-a values were determined in specimens exposed to conventional laboratory polishing techniques. No significant differences were found between Acrylic Polisher HP blue and AcryPoint polishing kits (P>.05). Statistically significant differences were found in the R-a between the PR and both the HP and AP (P<.001); PR exhibited the highest R-a values. Conclusions. Conventional laboratory polishing was the most effective polishing technique. A significantly smoother surface than that of the specimens in the control group was produced with chairside silicone polishing kits.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipAtaturk UniversityAtaturk University [2011/43]en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipThis study was supported by Project No. 2011/43 (Ataturk University). Presented at the Inonu University International Dentistry Congress, Malatya, Turkey, April 2012.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherMosby-Elsevieren_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectAcrylic resinsen_US
dc.titleInvestigation of the effect of different polishing techniques on the surface roughness of denture base and repair materialsen_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.contributor.departmentRTEÜ, Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi, Klinik Bilimler Bölümüen_US
dc.contributor.institutionauthorDuymuş, Zeynep Yeşil
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.03.023
dc.identifier.volume112en_US
dc.identifier.issue5en_US
dc.identifier.startpage1271en_US
dc.identifier.endpage1277en_US
dc.relation.journalJournal of Prosthetic Dentistryen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US


Bu öğenin dosyaları:

Thumbnail

Bu öğe aşağıdaki koleksiyon(lar)da görünmektedir.

Basit öğe kaydını göster