List of Articles Mehrdad kazemian

• Open Access Article
  • Abstract Page
  • Full-Text
  
  1 - Comparison of flexural strength and surface roughness of temporary crowns made by conventional and digital methods
  Mansureh sadat  Abtahi Mehrdad Barekatain Mehrdad kazemian Fereshteh Shahri
  Background: Assessment of dental materials do by different methods. The aim of this study was to compare the flexural strength and surface roughness of temporary crowns manufactured through conventional and digital methods. Materials and method: An experimental laborat More

  Background: Assessment of dental materials do by different methods. The aim of this study was to compare the flexural strength and surface roughness of temporary crowns manufactured through conventional and digital methods. Materials and method: An experimental laboratory study was conducted on 60 rod-shaped samples made from three different materials. These materials were ENA high filler flowable composite, CENTRIX self-curing acrylic base composite and 3D printer resin. To create the 3D printer group samples, the original metal model was scanned and the design file was printed using a 3D printer. For the composite samples and acrylic bases, a silicone index was used, which was composed of the original metal model. Ten samples of each material were stored in artificial saliva for 30 days. The samples were then tested for flexural strength and surface roughness. The data collected was analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance, Bonferroni’s post hoc (α =0.05). Results: The average flexural strength varied significantly among the three materials after being immersed in artificial saliva for a month (p<0.001). The ENA flow material's average flexural strength was significantly higher than the CENTRIX material and printed resin (p<0.001), and the CENTRIX material's average flexural strength was significantly higher than printed resin (p<0.001). The CENTRIX material also had a significantly higher initial roughness mean (Ra) value compared to the ENA flow material (p=0.010) and printed resin (p=0.009), while there was no significant difference between the ENA flow material and printed resin (p=1.00). One month after immersion in artificial saliva, the CENTRIX material's mean surface roughness (Ra) was significantly higher than the ENA flow material (p=0.005) and printed resin (p=0.040). Conclusion: Flowable composite resin presents better mechanical properties when compared to acrylic base resin and printed resin. The surface roughness of flowable composite and printed resin is lower than acrylic base composite, but the surface roughness of all materials increases when exposed to saliva. Manuscript profile