AIMS AND OBJECTIVE: To evaluate surface roughness of different resin-based composites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three resin composites, one nanohybrid, one nanoceramic, and one bulk-fill resin-based composite, were used in this study. Cylindrical Teflon mold and 8 mm in diameter and 2 mm in thickness disc specimens were prepared. For each composite material, 15 discs were fabricated, with a total of sixty discs were obtained (n = 60). A glass slide 1-2 mm thick was placed over the strip before curing with the light-curing unit to flatten the surfaces. The specimens were then cured for 40 s through the Mylar strip and the glass slide. Five specimens per each material received no finishing treatment after being cured under Mylar strips; these specimens served as a control. Ten specimens from each composite material were finished/polished with Eve discs at coarse, medium, fine, and superfine grits for 30 s (using stopwatch) each on the specimens. After polishing, the composite surfaces were assessed quantitatively by profilometry and qualitatively by scanning electron microscopy. Data were analyzed using SPSS software. RESULTS: Tetric Evo Ceram and Tetric Evo Ceram Bulk-Fill specimens polished with Eve revealed slightly the same surface appearance as the Mylar strip. Eve discs scratched and exposed fillers of Ceram-x. Eve discs for Z250 surfaces exposed and scratched the filler particles but less than occurred with Ceram-x. CONCLUSION: Bulk-Fill and nanohybrid resin composites exhibit smoothest surfaces compared with nanoceramic and microhybrid resin composites after polishing.
OBJECTIVES: This cross-sectional study was conducted to explore the specialty chosen by the dental students for postgraduate studies and the future aspirations of students in a Saudi Arabia dental college. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of the total number of 120 questionnaires that were distributed, 107 subjects responded with selective responses and a response rate of 89%. A descriptive survey was conducted using one of the questionnaires among the students of dentistry at the dental college, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Al-Kharj among male students (men's college) for a period of 2 months. The data were analyzed using the statistical software program, predictive analytics software Statistics version 22.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). RESULTS: A hundred and seven of the 120 students took part in the study. A passion for orthodontics (42.9%) was reported to be the most important factor that influenced the decision to pursue specialty training in orthodontics followed by intellectual stimulation/challenge (25%). The decision to pursue orthodontics was made by 32.1% of the respondents while in dental school; 35.7% took the decision after completing dental school during private practice and 14.3% during a dental residency, whereas 3.6% had already decided before initiating their dental school studies. Working in a private practice environment was preferred by 11 residents (39.3%). Only four residents indicated that they would most likely be practicing in an academic setting while 10 were undecided. CONCLUSIONS: The zest for nonclinical specialties is less among students at Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University's dental college, Saudi Arabia.
