METHODS: A total of 40 Tetric EvoCeram™ resin composite specimens against either a Lava™ Plus zirconia antagonist (n=20) or IPS e.max Press lithium disilicate antagonist (n=20) were prepared for the study. The surface roughness profiles of each resin composite before and after an in-vitro simulated chewing test were analysed using a 3D profilometer and Talymap software. After the simulated chewing, the surface profiles of representative Tetric EvoCeram specimens from each group were analysed using scanning electron microscopy. Independent t-test and paired t-test were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS: For both lithium disilicate and zirconia groups, all surface roughness parameters (Ra, Rt, Sa, Sq,) of Tetric EvoCeram were significantly higher post-chewing compared to pre-chewing (p<0.05); the post-chewing surface roughness parameters of Tetric EvoCeram for the lithium disilicate group were significantly higher (p<0.05) than in the zirconia group.

MATERIAL AND METHOD: Two hundred discs of PEEK were prepared of 6 mm × 2 mm × 10 mm dimension. The discs were randomly divided into five groups (n = 40) for treatment, Group I: treatment with deionized distilled water (control group); Group II: PD therapy using curcumin PS; Group III: discs treated and abraded with air-borne particles (ABP) silica (30 μm particle size) modified alumina (Al); Group IV: ABP of alumina (110 μm particle size); and Group V: The PEEK were finished with 600-μm grit size straight diamond cutting bur installed in high speed hand-piece. The surface profilometer was used to evaluate the values of surface roughness (SRa) of pretreated PEEK discs. The discs were luted and bonded to discs of composite resin. The bonded PEEK samples were placed in Universal testing machine to evaluate shear BS. The type of BS failure for PEEK discs pre-treated with five regimes respectively was evaluated under stereo-microscope. The data was statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA and the comparisons between mean values of shear BS were evaluated by Tukey's test (ρ≤0.05).

RESULTS: The PEEK samples pre-treated with diamond cutting straight fissure burs displayed statistically significant highest value of SRa values (3.258± 0.785 µm). Similarly, the shear BS was observed to be higher for the PEEK discs pre-treated with straight fissure bur (22.37±0.78 MPa). A comparable difference but not statistically significant difference was observed between PEEK discs pre-treated by curcumin PS and ABP-silica modified alumina (ρ ≥ 0.05).

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a stainless-steel mold, disc-shaped wax patterns with dimensions of 10 mm in diameter and 2 mm thick (in accordance with ADA Specification No. 12) were created and prepared for a total of 75 acrylic samples. Dimensions of all 75 acrylic samples were checked with a digital Vernier caliper. About 25 samples of denture base material were immersed in three different chemical disinfectants: Group I: immersed in chlorhexidine gluconate solution, group II: immersed in sodium hypochlorite solution, and group III: immersed in glutaraldehyde solution. All samples were scrubbed daily for 1 minute with the appropriate disinfectant and submerged for 10 minutes in the same disinfectant. Between disinfection cycles, samples were kept in distilled water at 37°C. Color stability was measured using a reflection spectrophotometer. Surface roughness values were measured by a profilometer at baseline following 15 days and 30 days.

RESULTS: After 15 days, the color stability was better in chlorhexidine gluconate solution group (4.88 ± 0.24) than sodium hypochlorite solution (4.74 ± 0.18) and glutaraldehyde solution group (4.46 ± 0.16). The mean surface roughness was less in glutaraldehyde solution group (2.10 ± 0.19), followed by chlorhexidine gluconate solution group (2.48 ± 0.09) and sodium hypochlorite solution group (2.64 ± 0.03). After 30 days, the color stability was significantly better in chlorhexidine gluconate solution group (4.40 ± 0.02), followed by sodium hypochlorite solution (4.06 ± 0.16) and glutaraldehyde solution group (3.87 ± 0.17). The mean surface roughness was significantly lesser in glutaraldehyde solution group (2.41 ± 0.14), followed by chlorhexidine gluconate solution group (2.94 ± 0.08) and sodium hypochlorite solution group (3.02 ± 0.13).

CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the color stability was significantly better in chlorhexidine gluconate solution group than sodium hypochlorite solution and glutaraldehyde solution group. But the surface roughness was significantly lesser in the glutaraldehyde solution group, followed by the chlorhexidine gluconate and sodium hypochlorite solution group.