1,721,077 research outputs found

    Prophylometric and sem analyse sof fourdifferent finishing methods

    Full text link
    Adhesion is the pivot of the modern restorative dentistry. Inlays, onlays and veneers have become a valid alternative to the traditional prosthetic treatments even in the rehabilitation of extremely damaged teeth, allowing aconsistent saving of sound tooth tissues. Composite resins and dental adhesive are continously investigated and improved, nevertheless the optimization of thetooth-adhesive interface has to be considered: in fact, the long-term stability of adhesion between tooth and compositematerial depends on the treatment of the amelo-dentinal surfaces.This study investigated the quality of the occlusal walls of a cavity prepared to receive an inlay and finished with four different systems: thin and extra-thin diamond coated burs, a 12-blades carbide burs and a diamond-coated tip driven bysonic instrument. Consequently, prophylometric and SEM analyses were performed on the samples. The average roughness values recordedby the prophylometer were expressed by the parameters Ra and RZ: there is a correspondence between the numeric val-ues and the pictures of the SEM. The results show a better quality (low roughness values) of the surface treated with multi-blade burs, followed by the thisand extrathin diamond coated burs. The 25 micron diamond-coated tip of the sonic instrument obtains the roughest surface and a sensibly higher amount of smear layer than the other tested systems

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    Full text link
    The present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
    corecore