UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Hardness of celluloid strip-finished or polished composite surfaces with time.


Park, S H; Krejci, I; Lutz, F (2000). Hardness of celluloid strip-finished or polished composite surfaces with time. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 83(6):660-663.

Abstract

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: An in-vitro study revealed that a celluloid strip-finished composite surface discolored more than the polished composite surface. Thus, the celluloid strip-finished composite surface may not cure enough compared with the polished composite surface. PURPOSE: This study tested the hypothesis that the celluloid strip-finished composite surface did not cure enough compared with the polished composite surface. METHODS AND MATERIAL: The composite was placed in a 1.5-mm thick aluminum mold and the upper surface was covered with a celluloid strip. Composite was light cured for 60 seconds, then a layer of approximately 200 microm thick was ground away from the lower surface and polished. The hardness of the upper composite surface that was polymerized under a celluloid strip and the polished lower surface were measured with Vickers hardness measuring instrument 15 minutes, 6 hours, and 6 days after light curing. The hardnesses of polished and celluloid strip-finished surfaces were compared using a paired t test. One-way ANOVA and Tukey was used for tests for the significant differences in hardnesses between 15 minutes, 6 hours, and 6 days after light curing for a given surface. RESULTS: Microhardness of the celluloid strip-finished composite surface was 380.6 N/mm(2) at 15 minutes, 442.5 N/mm(2) at 6 hours, and 519.2 N/mm(2) at 6 days after light curing. Microhardnesses of the polished composite surface was 476.6 N/mm(2) at 15 minutes, 511.7 N/mm(2) at 6 hours, and 535.0 N/mm(2) at 6 days after light curing. The hardness of the celluloid strip-opposed composite surface was significantly lower than that of the polished surface 15 minutes and 6 hours after light curing (P <. 001). There was no difference in hardness between the celluloid strip-opposed surface and the polished surface on the sixth day. CONCLUSION: The hardness of the celluloid strip-opposed composite surface was lower than that of the polished surface at 15 minutes and at 6 hours after light curing. However, there was no difference in microhardness in 6 days.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: An in-vitro study revealed that a celluloid strip-finished composite surface discolored more than the polished composite surface. Thus, the celluloid strip-finished composite surface may not cure enough compared with the polished composite surface. PURPOSE: This study tested the hypothesis that the celluloid strip-finished composite surface did not cure enough compared with the polished composite surface. METHODS AND MATERIAL: The composite was placed in a 1.5-mm thick aluminum mold and the upper surface was covered with a celluloid strip. Composite was light cured for 60 seconds, then a layer of approximately 200 microm thick was ground away from the lower surface and polished. The hardness of the upper composite surface that was polymerized under a celluloid strip and the polished lower surface were measured with Vickers hardness measuring instrument 15 minutes, 6 hours, and 6 days after light curing. The hardnesses of polished and celluloid strip-finished surfaces were compared using a paired t test. One-way ANOVA and Tukey was used for tests for the significant differences in hardnesses between 15 minutes, 6 hours, and 6 days after light curing for a given surface. RESULTS: Microhardness of the celluloid strip-finished composite surface was 380.6 N/mm(2) at 15 minutes, 442.5 N/mm(2) at 6 hours, and 519.2 N/mm(2) at 6 days after light curing. Microhardnesses of the polished composite surface was 476.6 N/mm(2) at 15 minutes, 511.7 N/mm(2) at 6 hours, and 535.0 N/mm(2) at 6 days after light curing. The hardness of the celluloid strip-opposed composite surface was significantly lower than that of the polished surface 15 minutes and 6 hours after light curing (P <. 001). There was no difference in hardness between the celluloid strip-opposed surface and the polished surface on the sixth day. CONCLUSION: The hardness of the celluloid strip-opposed composite surface was lower than that of the polished surface at 15 minutes and at 6 hours after light curing. However, there was no difference in microhardness in 6 days.

Citations

13 citations in Web of Science®
15 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > Center for Dental Medicine > Clinic for Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:1 June 2000
Deposited On:11 Feb 2008 12:24
Last Modified:05 Apr 2016 12:19
Publisher:Elsevier
ISSN:0022-3913
Publisher DOI:10.1016/S0022-3913(00)70067-9
PubMed ID:10842135

Download

Full text not available from this repository.View at publisher

TrendTerms

TrendTerms displays relevant terms of the abstract of this publication and related documents on a map. The terms and their relations were extracted from ZORA using word statistics. Their timelines are taken from ZORA as well. The bubble size of a term is proportional to the number of documents where the term occurs. Red, orange, yellow and green colors are used for terms that occur in the current document; red indicates high interlinkedness of a term with other terms, orange, yellow and green decreasing interlinkedness. Blue is used for terms that have a relation with the terms in this document, but occur in other documents.
You can navigate and zoom the map. Mouse-hovering a term displays its timeline, clicking it yields the associated documents.

Author Collaborations