Surface roughness analysis of dental ceramics treated with hydrofl uoric acid and aluminum oxide jet

• Autor(a) principal: Porto, Thiago Soares [UNESP]
• Data de Publicação: 2014
• Outros Autores: Tonetto, Mateus Rodrigues [UNESP], Lorenzetti, Camila Cruz [UNESP], Bandéca, Matheus Coelho, Borges, Alvaro Henrique, Porto Neto, Sizenando de Toledo [UNESP], Campos, Edson Alves de [UNESP], Dinelli, Wellington [UNESP]
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UNESP
• Texto Completo: http://www.jaypeejournals.com/eJournals/Abstract.aspx?id=5678&AID=15&num=2; http://hdl.handle.net/11449/125904
• topic: Laboratory research; Hydrofluoric acid; Aluminum oxide

The aim of this study was to evaluate the surface roughness of 5 indirect restorative materials treated with hydrofluoric acid to 10%, with aluminum oxide jet and a combination of both. The specimens was prepared with 10 mm in diameter and 2 mm thickness, divided into fi ve groups: (1) Ceromer (CeseadII-Kuraray), (2) Leucite crystals ceramics (IPS EmpressIIIvoclarforcasket), (3) glass ceramic with fluorapatite (IPS D. Sign-Ivoclar), (4) lithium disilicate ceramic (IPS Empress II-Ivoclar restorations), (5) ceramics (Cergogold-Degussa). For all groups were performed the controls, and the surfaces with the 3 types of treatment. For testing roughness used the rugosimeter Taylor/Hobson-Precision, model form tracerSV-C525 high sensitivity. After confi rmation of variance analysis with a signifi cance level of 1% (p < 0.01), there was equality between the average roughness of materials from groups 1, 3 and 5, and the group 2 was different from the others. It was also found that the ceramics of the group 5 behaved similar to group 4. However the lowest average roughness was observed in group 2 ceramic. In the evaluation between the types of treatment, the aluminum oxide jet and associations and blasting with hydrofl uoric acid were similar, and different isolated hydrofl uoric acid, and 3 types of treatment signifi cantly higher than the control group. All treatments promoted superfi cial alterations in all tested materials.