Evaluation of surface roughness of composites obtained by additive and subtractive manufacturing methods after sandblasting

Neslihan Güntekin(1), Sinem Alkurt(2), Aslı Çiftçi(3), Hakan Yasin Gönder(4), Emine Begüm Büyükerkmen(5)
(1) Necmettin Erbakan University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Prosthodontics, Konya, Türkiye,
(2) Necmettin Erbakan University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Konya, Türkiye,
(3) Necmettin Erbakan University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Prosthodontics, Konya, Türkiye,
(4) Necmettin Erbakan University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Konya, Türkiye,
(5) Necmettin Erbakan University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Prosthodontics, Konya, Türkiye

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to observe the change in the surface roughness of composite samples produced by different production methods after sandblasting with aluminum oxide particles and to evaluate the effect of this on the composite material.


Methodology: The study tested three subtractive method composites (GC Cerasmart [GC], Vita Enamic [VE] and Grandio Voco [GV]) and one additive method composite (3D Formlabs [3D]) were used. Each subtractive composite had 11 samples (14 x 14 x 2 mm) prepared with an Isomet low-speed saw, whereas the additive composite had 11 specimens produced using an SLA-based 3D printer (Form 2; Formlabs Inc). For roughness measurements and sandblasting, the samples were marked with an adhesive circular paper. Surface roughness was measured using a MarSurf SF1 profilometer, with three readings per sample. Sandblasting with aluminum oxide particles (50 µm) was performed using an Aquacare twin in-mouth sandblaster, and surface roughness measurements were repeated. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) via SPSS 26, with significance set at p=0.05.


Results: Among the composite samples, Vita Enamic (VE) had the highest average roughness value, and 3D Formlabs (3D) had the lowest. VE had a mean roughness value of 0.4575 µm, GC had a mean roughness value of 0.4627 µm, GV had a mean roughness value of 0.665 µm and D had a mean roughness value of 0.4575 µm. All groups were compared pairwise with each other. A significant difference was found between the GV-D, VE-D, GC-GV, GC-VE, and GC-D group pairings (p<0.05). There was no significant difference between the GV-VE and GC-D group pairings (p>0.05).


Conclusion: Sandblasting with aluminum oxide was observed to increase the roughness of the materials, and the roughness varied depending on the nature of the material. Further studies are required to investigate the effects of roughness on the bonding.


 


How to cite this article:


Güntekin N, Alkurt S, Çiftçi A, Gönder HY, Büyükerkmen EB. Evaluation of surface roughness of composites obtained by additive and subtractive manufacturing methods after sandblasting. Int Dent Res. 2024;14(S1):60-64 https://doi.org/10.5577/indentres.559

Full text article

Generated from XML file

Authors

Neslihan Güntekin
Sinem Alkurt
Aslı Çiftçi
aciftci16.25@gmail.com (Primary Contact)
Hakan Yasin Gönder
Emine Begüm Büyükerkmen
Güntekin, N. ., Alkurt, S., Çiftçi, A., Gönder, H. Y., & Büyükerkmen, E. B. (2024). Evaluation of surface roughness of composites obtained by additive and subtractive manufacturing methods after sandblasting. International Dental Research, 14(Suppl. 1), 60-64. https://doi.org/10.5577/indentres.559

Article Details

How to Cite

Güntekin, N. ., Alkurt, S., Çiftçi, A., Gönder, H. Y., & Büyükerkmen, E. B. (2024). Evaluation of surface roughness of composites obtained by additive and subtractive manufacturing methods after sandblasting. International Dental Research, 14(Suppl. 1), 60-64. https://doi.org/10.5577/indentres.559
Smart Citations via scite_

Similar Articles

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 > >> 

Evaluation of shear bond strength of amalgam restorations repaired with composite resin by different surface treatments

Suzan Cangül, Özkan Adıgüzel, Begüm Erpaçal, Mehmet Ünal, Musa Acartürk, Ömer Satıcı
Abstract View : 1274
Download :613

Comparison of different standardised bond strength tests and the influence of glycine powder treatment in composite resin repairs

Gregor Herrmann, Susanne Reimann, Nikolaos Daratsianos, Anna Weber, Ludger Keilig, Jennifer...
Abstract View : 651
Download :1519

Effect of repolishing on the surface roughness and color stability of air-abraded resin composites

Nurcan Altaş, Aysu Aydınoğlu, Burcu Gözetici Çil, Ergün Keleşoğu, Kadir Sağır, Afife Binnaz Hazar...
Abstract View : 447
Download :316