An evaluation of surface roughness after staining of different composite resins using atomic force microscopy and a profilometer

Karatas O., GÜL P., Gundogdu M., İSKENDEROĞLU D.

MICROSCOPY RESEARCH AND TECHNIQUE, cilt.83, sa.10, ss.1251-1259, 2020 (SCI-Expanded, Scopus) identifier identifier identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 83 Sayı: 10
  • Basım Tarihi: 2020
  • Doi Numarası: 10.1002/jemt.23519
  • Dergi Adı: MICROSCOPY RESEARCH AND TECHNIQUE
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, Aerospace Database, Agricultural & Environmental Science Database, Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA), Biotechnology Research Abstracts, CAB Abstracts, Communication Abstracts, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Metadex, Veterinary Science Database, Civil Engineering Abstracts
  • Sayfa Sayıları: ss.1251-1259
  • Anahtar Kelimeler: AFM, composite resin, profilometer and surface roughness
  • Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Adresli: Hayır

Özet

Aim The aim of this study was to compare the surface roughness of different composite resins using atomic force microscope (AFM) and a profilometer after storage in different solutions. Materials and methods Eight different composite resins were used in this study. Twenty specimens of each composite resin material were prepared using a 2-mm thick and 8-mm diameter stainless steel mold. After the composites had been placed in the mold, they were polymerized with a LED curing unit. The surfaces of all specimens were polished using aluminum oxide discs, and the specimens were then divided into four groups. The specimens in the experimental groups were stored in cola, coffee, or red wine, while the control group was stored in distilled water. Specimen surface roughness was examined after 30 days using an AFM and a profilometer, and the data obtained were subjected to analysis. Results Evaluation of the surface roughness of composite resins using a profilometer revealed no statistically significant difference between the groups, but significant differences were found using the AFM. The mean surface roughness of nanohybrid composites was lower than that of microhybrid composites. Conclusions The surface roughness of the composite resins varies with storage in different solutions, depending on the organic matrix structure and inorganic fillers of the resin.