Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists · 2026
Effect of different cariostatic agents on the surface roughness and color change of CAD-CAM-milled restorative materials: An in vitro comparative study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Melo Vitória Mendes Souza E, Vasconcelos Emanuel Ewerton Mendonça, Melo Jacksuel Azevedo, Monteiro Gabriela Queiroz de Melo, Ortigoza Fernanda Donida, Galembeck André, Espíndola-Castro Luís Felipe
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate the influence of different cariostatic agents: 38% silver diamine fluoride (SDF), 38% SDF + potassium iodide (RS), and nano silver fluoride (NSF) compared with distilled water (control), on the surface roughness and color change of CAD-CAM-milled restorative materials: nanoceramic resin (NR), feldspathic ceramic (FC), and lithium disilicate ceramic (LD).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-two specimens of each material were fabricated and allocated into four experimental groups (n = 8). The specimens underwent repeated applications of the cariostatic agents (3 min, repeated six times) and were evaluated for surface roughness (∆Ra) by profilometry and for color change using a digital spectrophotometer, with analysis based on the CIEDE2000 system (∆E00). Data were analyzed using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), followed by one-way ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis tests with appropriate post hoc comparisons and Bonferroni correction (α = 0.05).
RESULTS: A statistically significant interaction was observed between restorative material type and the applied cariostatic agent. SDF produced the greatest increases in roughness, especially in LD (∆Ra = 0.232) and FC (∆Ra = 0.126), compared with the control group (p < 0.001), and color-change values far above clinically acceptable thresholds (∆E00 = 30.56-45.72; p < 0.001). Potassium iodide application after SDF (RS) showed low color change across all restorative materials (∆E00 = 0.28-0.75) and increased roughness in the FC. NSF showed behavior similar to the control group in terms of roughness and maintained color-change values within acceptable limits (∆E00 = 0.57-1.35).
CONCLUSIONS: SDF may compromise the surface roughness and color change of CAD-CAM-milled restorative materials, whereas NSF and RS show potential as more favorable alternatives for the evaluated outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-two specimens of each material were fabricated and allocated into four experimental groups (n = 8). The specimens underwent repeated applications of the cariostatic agents (3 min, repeated six times) and were evaluated for surface roughness (∆Ra) by profilometry and for color change using a digital spectrophotometer, with analysis based on the CIEDE2000 system (∆E00). Data were analyzed using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), followed by one-way ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis tests with appropriate post hoc comparisons and Bonferroni correction (α = 0.05).
RESULTS: A statistically significant interaction was observed between restorative material type and the applied cariostatic agent. SDF produced the greatest increases in roughness, especially in LD (∆Ra = 0.232) and FC (∆Ra = 0.126), compared with the control group (p < 0.001), and color-change values far above clinically acceptable thresholds (∆E00 = 30.56-45.72; p < 0.001). Potassium iodide application after SDF (RS) showed low color change across all restorative materials (∆E00 = 0.28-0.75) and increased roughness in the FC. NSF showed behavior similar to the control group in terms of roughness and maintained color-change values within acceptable limits (∆E00 = 0.57-1.35).
CONCLUSIONS: SDF may compromise the surface roughness and color change of CAD-CAM-milled restorative materials, whereas NSF and RS show potential as more favorable alternatives for the evaluated outcomes.