JIOH on LinkedIn JIOH on Facebook
  • Users Online: 435
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL HYPOTHESIS
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 12  |  Issue : 7  |  Page : 47-52

Surface roughness of two different monolithic materials after chewing simulation


1 Masters of Fixed Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Alfarabi Private College for Dentistry and Nursing, Jeddah, KSA, Future University in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt
2 Professor of Fixed Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
3 Assistant professor of Fixed Prosthodontics, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Future University in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt
4 Lecturer of Fixed Prosthodontics, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Future University in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt
5 General Dentist, Ministry of Health, Jeddah, KSA
6 General Dentist, Hani Ragaban Clinics, Jeddah, KSA
7 General Dentist, King Fahad General Hospital, Jeddah, KSA

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Wafaa Mahmoud Hamed
Masters of Fixed Prosthodontics, BDS, MSD, faculty of dentistry, Alfarabi Private College for Dentistry and Nursing- Jeddah-KSA. Future University in Egypt
Egypt
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jioh.jioh_272_19

Rights and Permissions

Aims and Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate two-body wear and surface roughness of two different monolithic ceramics: polymer-infiltrated ceramic (PICN) and lithium disilicate. Materials and Methods: Chewing simulator was used to investigate two-body wear (75,000 cycles, 49N, and 60 cycle/min). The tested samples were divided into two groups according to their materials; each group comprised 14 ceramic discs. Subtractive weight loss was used to statistically analyze the wear of all samples before and after chewing simulation test. Surface roughness was measured before and after chewing simulation test using three-dimensional optical profilometry. Data were collected and analyzed using analysis of variance test, and then verified by unpaired t-test. Results: Statistically significant differences were found for two-body wear, with higher mean weight loss in PICN than lithium disilicate after chewing simulation. PICN had higher mean surface roughness value than lithium disilicate after chewing simulation. Conclusion: PICN showed higher wear regarding weight loss and surface roughness changes than lithium disilicate.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed107    
    Printed2    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded22    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal