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

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

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
International Dental Research
Published
2024-12-31
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5577/indentres.559
Primary Topic
Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

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

Emine Begüm Büyükerkmen, Hakan Yasin Gönder, Sinem Alkurt, Neslihan Güntekin et al.
International Dental Research
Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
article

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

Emine Begüm Büyükerkmen, Hakan Yasin Gönder, Sinem Alkurt, Neslihan Güntekin, Aslı Çiftçi
article en

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

International Dental ResearchVol. 14(Suppl. 1)
Necmettin Erbakan University (TR)
Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi
Openalex Percentile: Top 69%
Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.