Evaluation of Surface Roughness of Different Dental Resin Composite, Comparative invitro Study | ||||
| Sue Oral and Dental Medicine Journal | ||||
| Volume 1, Issue 2, June 2025, Page 58-63 PDF (403.96 K) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/suodmj.2025.405557.1016 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Author | ||||
Abd Allah El-Saadany 
| ||||
| Alsalam university | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Abstract Aim of the work: The aim of this study is to compare surface roughness (Ra) of nanohybrid, nanofilled, fiber reinforced and bulk fill composites. Materials and methods: Testing procedures was done according to ISO 25178-2:2012. Ten specimens of GrandioSo, Filtek™ Z350 XT, Ever X Posterior and Beautifil-Bulk were prepared in a half-split stainless-steel round mold of 8 mm diameter and 2 mm thickness. Specimens were sequentially finished with a 600# and 1,200# silicon carbide paper, then were polished sequentially with a complete series of Soflex polishing discs. Surface roughness was measured by optical (Profilometry) without contact. Statistical analysis was made by SPSS Statistical Package of Social Science version 25. Results: The highest surface roughness (m) mean value was recorded for Ever-X Posterior (1.15 ± 0.2 m) followed by Beautifil-Bulk (0.188 ± 0.009 m), then GrandioSo (0.170 ± 0.009 m). The lowest mean value was recorded for Filtek™ Z350 XT (0.095 ± 0.005 m). One-Way ANOVA revealed that, there was significant difference in surface roughness between tested composite materials (P=0.000). Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, internal structure of composite resin as types of resin matrix, size and types of composites filler affect the surface morphology of resin composites. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Surface roughness; resin matrix; composite filler; profilometry; aesthetic dentistry | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 44 PDF Download: 20 |
||||
