RESUMEN
AIM: To compare and evaluate the surface characteristics of different restorative materials used for restoration of cervical defects when subjected to periodontal prophylactic instrumentation techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY: Sixty box-shaped cavities were prepared on the labial surface of decoronated permanent maxillary anterior teeth which were randomly divided into two groups (n = 30) based on the instrumentation technique Group I: Manual instrumentation using curettes and Group II: Ultrasonic instrumentation. The samples were further divided into three subgroups based on restorative material subgroups I V and II V-restored with Vitremer, subgroups I F and II F-restored with Filtek Z 250 XT and subgroups I D and II D-restored with Dyract flow, respectively. After finishing and polishing, the samples were subjected to surface profilometry analysis for determining the surface roughness values (Ra). Thereafter, the restored surfaces of all the samples in different subgroups were subjected to prophylactic instrumentation with Gracey's curettes (Group I) and ultrasonic scalers (Group II). Ra values were recorded again after prophylactic instrumentation and after polishing. The data thus obtained were subjected to the statistical analysis using the independent t-test and one-way ANOVA (p<0.05). RESULTS: Ra values were significantly higher for both manual and ultrasonic prophylaxis compared to preprophylaxis and postpolishing in all the three restorative materials. Ultrasonic scaling produced significantly higher Ra for subgroup V as compared to subgroup F and subgroup D, whereas the difference between the materials was not significant for manual scaling. CONCLUSION: Manual prophylaxis resulted in significant reduction in surface roughness of all the three restorative materials while ultrasonic prophylaxis resulted in significant reduction for Vitremer only. Polishing after scaling significantly reduced the effect of both manual and ultrasonic prophylaxis on surface roughness.
RESUMEN
AIM: The purpose of this study was evaluation and comparison of the contact angle of new root canal sealers - Hybrid Root Seal, mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) Plus, and the conventional AH Plus sealer with dentin and gutta-percha. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two groups (Group D - dentin and Group G - gutta-percha) of 18 samples each were further randomly divided into 3 subgroups based on the type of sealer used, that is, AH Plus, Hybrid Root Seal, and MTA Plus. Contact angle measurement device (Phoenix 300) was used to measure the contact angle of the sealers on both dentin and gutta-percha. The results thus obtained were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance and Student's t-test. RESULTS: MTA Plus recorded significantly higher values of contact angle on both the substrates, that is, dentin and gutta-percha when compared to AH Plus and Hybrid root canal sealer. The lowest value of contact angle in gutta-percha and dentin was shown by Hybrid root canal sealer and AH Plus, respectively. CONCLUSION: Both AH Plus and Hybrid Root Seal exhibited lower contact angle values, and hence, better wettability on both dentin and gutta-percha as compared to MTA Plus.