• Users Online: 136
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 7  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 15-17

Comparative evaluation of surface roughness of novel resin composite Cention N with Filtek Z350 XT: In vitro study


Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Sri Siddhartha Dental College, Tumkur, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Jyothi Nagesh
#101, 2nd cross, 4th main, income tax layout, vijayanagar, Landmark: Near attiguppe.
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/INJO.INJO_9_19

Rights and Permissions

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the surface roughness of Cention N and Filtek Z350 XT resin composite. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference observed in surface roughness between the Cention N and Filtek Z350 XT resin composite. Introduction: The use of resin composites in restorative dentistry has markedly increased in recent years due to increased demand for esthetics. The advent of novel fluoride-releasing resin composite Cention N has brought enormous benefits. Finishing and polishing of composite resin restorations are essential steps in restorative dentistry. However, there are no studies available in literatures regarding the effective use of Soflex finishing and polishing with Cention N. Hence, the purpose of the study was to evaluate the surface roughness of novel resin composite Cention N and compare with Filtek Z350 XT resin composite. Materials and Methods: Sixty-four specimens were prepared in Teflon plastic mold of 8-mm diameter and 2-mm thickness, and were divided into group 1 (Filtek Z350 XT [n = 32]) and group 2 (Cention N [n = 32]). They were further subdivided into group 1A (Matrix finish [n = 16]) and 1B (Soflex [n = 16]), and group 2A (Matrix finish [n = 16]) and 2B (Soflex [n = 16]). Surface roughness was measured using surface profilometer. Results: When comparing the mean values and standard deviations of surface roughness of four groups using one-way ANOVA, it was found that there was a significant difference (P < 0.001) in mean surface roughness between the four groups. Conclusion: All the groups presented the values that are below or approximating baseline value for bacterial or plaque retention.


[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
    Viewed270    
    Printed32    
    Emailed1    
    PDF Downloaded72    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal