Abstract:

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to study the effect of toothpaste on the surface smoothness of different restorative materials. Tool and Method: In this study, a total of 40 com-positive discs have been created. The composite disks are made of two direct composite [Aelite All Purpose Body (Bisco, Schaumburg, IL, America), Clearfil Majesty Posterior, (Kuraray Medi- cal Inc, Tokyo, Japan)], a indirect [Epricord (Ku-raray)] composite and a compomer [(Dyract XP (Dyract XP, Dentsply, Konstanz, Germany)] materials (n=10). The prepared composites are made with the PoGo kit. The composites in each group were divided into two (n=5) and two different toothpaste (Colgate, Sensodyne) were applied to these subgroups for 12 minutes through an electric toothbrush. The values for each example are recorded separately for the beginning, after and after toothbrush. Statistical analysis is done with repeated one-way variance analysis (Anova) (p<0.05). Results:All groups showed their low smoothness values—signs prepared under a transparent band meaningfully (p<0.05). After the polish- shake smoothness value Aelite (0,347±0,21), high smoothness values Dyract XP (0,453±0,11) displayed (p>0.05). The result: all the restorative ma-teryals used in this study showed ben-zero results with statistically starting values from the muscle to the washing process with two different toothbrushes. However, while Sensodyne improved the smoothness of Aelite, Majesty Posterior and Dyract XP at a mild level, Colgate Epricord and Dyract XP improved the smoothness at a mild level. Keywords : Refined composite, microhybrid, nanohybrid, toothpaste, surface smoothness EFFECT OF THE TWO DIFERENT TOOTHPASTES ON SURFACE ROUGHNESS OF DIFERENT RESTORATIVE MATERIALS Aim: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of toothpastes on surface roughness of different restorative materials. Materials and Methods: 40 composite discs were created for this study. Composite disc are constituted from two direct composites [Aelite All Purpose Body (Bisco, Schaumburg, IL, USA), Clearfil Majesty Posterior, (Kuraray Medical Inc, Tokyo, Japan)], an indirect composite [Epricord (Kuraray)] and a compomer [(Dyract XP (Dyract XP, Dentsply, Germany)] (n=10). The PoGo kit was used for finishing and polishing procedures. Each composite group were divided into two (n=5) and two different toothpaste (Colgate, Sensodyne) were applied by an electric toothbrush for 12 minutes. Initial values, and after polishing and tooth brushing values for each material were recorded separately. Statistical analysis was performed by one-way ANOVA (p<0.05). Results: In all groups; the lowest roughness values were obtained from examples prepared under the mylar strip (significantly)(p<0.05). After polishing, Aelite (0.347±0.21) exhibited the lowest roughness values, and Dyract XP (0.453±0.11) exhibited the highest values (p>0.05). Conclusion: All restorative materials used in this study exhibited statistically similar results after tooth brushing with two different toothpastes according to baseline. Sensodyne improved smoothness of Aelite, Majesty Posterior and Dyract XP, while Colgate improved smoothness of Epricord and Dyract XP. Keywords: Resin composite, microhybrid, nanohybrid, toothpaste, surface roughness

Keywords: