Different methods of finishing and polishing enamel

Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

Volumn 89, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 135-140

  Giampaolo, Eunice Teresinha ^a   Machado, Ana Lucia ^a   Pavarina, Ana Cláudia ^a   Vergani, Carlos Eduardo ^a  

^a SÃO PAULO STATE UNIVERSITY UNESP   (Brazil)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; DENTURE; ENAMEL; EVALUATION; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MEASUREMENT; MOLAR TOOTH; POROSITY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TOOTH EXTRACTION; DENTAL EQUIPMENT; DENTAL SURGERY; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; METHODOLOGY; NONPARAMETRIC TEST; RANDOMIZATION; SURFACE PROPERTY;

DIAMOND; PUMICE; SILICATE; SILICON; TIN DERIVATIVE; TIN DIOXIDE; TUNGSTEN CARBIDE; TUNGSTEN DERIVATIVE;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; DENTAL ABUTMENTS; DENTAL ENAMEL; DENTAL INSTRUMENTS; DENTURE, PARTIAL, FIXED; DIAMOND; HUMANS; MOLAR; RANDOM ALLOCATION; SILICATES; SILICON; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC; SURFACE PROPERTIES; TIN COMPOUNDS; TOOTH PREPARATION, PROSTHODONTIC; TUNGSTEN COMPOUNDS;

EID: 0037712986     PISSN: 00223913     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2003.21     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Henderson D, Hickey JC, Wehner PJ. Prevention and preservation the challenge of removable partial denture service. Dent Clin North Am 1965;9:459-73.
2. Ayad MF, Rosenstiel SF, Hassan MM. Surface roughness of dentin after tooth preparation with different rotary instrumentation. J Prosthet Dent 1996;75:122-8.
3. de Vries J, de Wet FA, Eick JD. Polishing dental amalgam restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1987;58:148-52.
4. Pratten DH, Johnson GH. An evaluation of finishing instruments for an anterior and a posterior composite. J Prosthet Dent 1988;60:154-8.
5. Herrgott AM, Ziemiecki TL, Dennison JB. An evaluation of different composite resin systems finished with various abrasives. J Am Dent Assoc 1989;119:729-32.
6. Wilson F, Heath JR, Watts DC. Finishing composite restorative materials. J Oral Rehabil 1990;17:79-87.
7. Eide R, Tveit AB. Finishing and polishing glass-ionomer cements. Acta Odontol Scand 1990;48:409-13.
8. Stoddard JW, Johnson GH. An evaluation of polishing agents for composite resins. J Prosthet Dent 1991;65:491-5.
9. Berastegui E, Canalda C, Brau E, Miquel C. Surface roughness of finished composite resins. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68:742-9.
10. Patterson CJ, McLundie AC, Stirrups DR, Taylor WG. Efficacy of a porcelain refinishing system in restoring surface finish after grinding with fine and extra-fine diamond burs. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68:402-6.
11. Scurria MS, Powers JM. Surface roughness of two polished ceramic materials. J Prosthet Dent 1994;71:174-7.
12. Barkmeier WW, Kelsey WP 3rd, Blankenau RJ, Peterson DS. Enamel cavosurface bevels finished with ultraspeed instruments. J Prosthet Dent 1983;49:481-4.
13. Theuniers G, De Clercq M. Finishing procedures for the preparation of crown margins. J Prosthet Dent 1987;58:545-52.
14. Price RB, Sutow EJ. Micrographic and profilometric evaluation of the finish produced by diamond and tungsten carbide finishing burs on enamel and dentin. J Prosthet Dent 1988;60:311-6.
15. Lentz DL, Quiroz L. An evaluation of enamel damage caused by different finishing systems. LDA J 1987;46:9-12.
16. Piacentini C, Sfondrini G. A scanning electron microscopy comparison of enamel polishing methods after air-rotor stripping. Am J Orthod Dentofa-cial Orthop 1996;109:57-63.
17. Stout KJ. Surface roughness: measurement, interpretation and significance of data. Materials Engineering 1981;2:260-5.
18. Whitehead SA, Shearer AC, Watts DC, Wilson NH. Comparison of methods for measuring surface roughness of ceramic. J Oral Rehabil 1995;22: 421-7.