Surface roughness of dentin after tooth preparation with different rotary instrumentation.

Although surface finish can be a critical variable in clinical performance, there is a dearth of information regarding surface characteristics of teeth prepared for artificial crowns. This study characterized teeth prepared for complete cast restorations using three representative types of rotary instruments. One hundred and five standardized tooth preparations for complete crowns were performed using a modified milling machine on extracted human teeth with diamond, tungsten carbide, and tungsten carbide finishing burs of similar shape (n = 35). The prepared dentin was analyzed with a surface profilometer and a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Differences between rotary instrument groups were determined with parametric ANOVA and Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD). Statistically significant differences in the surface topography of prepared teeth were open. Mean surface roughnesses (Ra) were 8.6 and 6.8 mum for teeth prepared with diamond and tungsten carbide burs. Teeth completed with finishing burs appeared to result in a smoother surface (1.2 mum).

[1]  S. Wendt,et al.  Dentinal surface roughness: a comparison of tooth preparation techniques. , 1993, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[2]  K. Leknes,et al.  Influence of polishing procedures on sonic scaling root surface roughness. , 1991, Journal of periodontology.

[3]  A. Grant,et al.  Factors affecting the adhesion of polycarboxylate cement to enamel and dentin. , 1981, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[4]  S. Vermilyea,et al.  The effects of die relief agent on the retention of full coverage castings. , 1983, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[5]  Rosenstiel Sf,et al.  Mixing variables of zinc phosphate cement and their influence on the seating and retention of complete crowns. , 1989 .

[6]  Edward G. Kaufman,et al.  Factors influencing the retention of cemented gold castings , 1961 .

[7]  K. Dreyer,et al.  The relationship between retention and convergence angle in cemented veneer crowns. , 1955 .

[8]  Martin F. Land,et al.  Contemporary Fixed Prosthodontics , 1988 .

[9]  W B Eames,et al.  Techniques to improve the seating of castings. , 1978, Quintessence of dental technology.

[10]  A G Gegauff,et al.  Reassessment of die-spacer with dynamic loading during cementation. , 1989, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[11]  S Newman,et al.  The effect of multiple layers of die-spacer on crown retention. , 1992, Operative dentistry.

[12]  Takao Fusayama,et al.  Relief of resistance of cement of full cast crowns , 1964 .

[13]  D. Retief,et al.  Effect of dentin surface roughness on shear bond strength. , 1990, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[14]  N Juntavee,et al.  Effect of surface roughness and cement space on crown retention. , 1992, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[15]  G Byrne,et al.  Influence of finish-line form on crown cementation. , 1992, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[16]  J. Eick,et al.  Surface Topography: Its Influence on Wetting and Adhesion in a Dental Adhesive System , 1972, Journal of dental research.

[17]  J. Nicholls,et al.  Analysis of gold removal by acid etching and electrochemical stripping. , 1979, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[18]  C E Brukl,et al.  Crown retention and seating on natural teeth with a resin cement. , 1985, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[19]  E. Davis,et al.  Dentin bonding: the effect of surface roughness on shear bond strength. , 1987, Operative dentistry.

[20]  M S Scurria,et al.  Surface roughness of two polished ceramic materials. , 1994, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[21]  S Erhardson,et al.  Crown retention and cyclic loading (in vitro). , 1993, Scandinavian journal of dental research.