Effect of finishing and polishing methods on surface roughness of autopolymerized acrylic resins

• Autor(a) principal: DUARTE,Gabriel Lúcio Calazans
• Data de Publicação: 2017
• Outros Autores: MENDONÇA,Angélica Kercya Pereira de, FREITAS,Ana Roberta Assunção de, DUARTE,Antônio Ricardo Calazans, HOLANDA,Julita de Campos Pipolo
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: RGO - Revista Gaúcha de Odontologia (Online)
• Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1981-86372017000400303
• topic: Acrylic resins; Dental polishing; Esthetics, dental

ABSTRACT Objective : To evaluate the surface roughness of two makes of autopolymerized acrylic resin (Classic Dencor® and Duralay®) with two different methods of finishing and polishing (conventional and using the Dhpro® finishing & polishing kit). Methods : A total of 20 specimens (10 of each make) was obtained using Zetalabor®--Zhermak condensation silicone molds. After polymerization, 20 blocks of resin were divided in two and subjected to two types of finishing and polishing, one at each end. The types of finishing and polishing were as follows: conventional (lathe) and using the Dhpro® finishing & polishing kit. Once finished and polished, the specimens were subjected to surface roughness testing using a roughness meter and were analyzed via the Student’s t-test. Results : There is a statistically significant difference between the forms of polishing, unrelated to the brand of acrylic resin. Conventional polishing achieved a level of 0.12 µm for both resins and the DhPro® polishing presented roughness a little above 0.2 µm. Conclusion : Conventional polishing is superior to the DhPro® kit, as it achieves lower levels of roughness. There is no significant difference between the acrylic resins in terms of surface roughness after the finishing and polishing processes.