Randomized trial evaluates roughness of dental materials, indicating material properties affect digitization accuracy.
The goal of this study was to use a non-contact laser profilometer (NCLP) to evaluate the digitalization behavior of various dental materials. Glass slab was used to generate standardized surface features after three kinds of dental stone Type III, Type IV, and Type V high-strength dental stone and fifteen imprint ingredients were mixed according to the directions of the manufacturers. The surface roughness parameters Ra, Rq, and Rt were calculated using 20 randomly chosen transverse profiles after the NCLP analyzed a 6 × 40 mm scan region from every sample. After that, the impression materials were filled with dental stone called Silky-RockTM (Whip Mix Corp., Louisville, KY, USA), and the casts were measured for roughness in the same way. The statistical study of differences in roughness between materials was conducted using one-way ANOVA, while the comparison of impression materials to their matching stone casts was done using a paired t-test. There were statistical differences (p < 0.05) in each group (impression materials and dental stones) between the various tested materials. The dental stones had surface roughness values that varied from 0.84 to 1.08 µm, Rq values from 1.06 to 1.31 µm, and Rt values from 5.48 to 6.83 «m. From 0.73 to 4.62 µm, Rq from 0.93 to 6.19 µm, and Rt from 4.61 to 39.54 µm were the roughness values for the impression materials. Dark colored impression materials had a significantly different roughness value compared to lighter color ones (p < 0.05). The Silky-RockTM castings had roughness values ranging from 0.80 to 1.04 µm for Ra, 1.01 to 1.27 µm for Rq, and 5.01 to 6.34 µm for Rt. After replication in many impression materials, Silky-RockTM dental stone showed a statistically significant reduction in roughness change (p<0.01). Optical profilometry digitization accuracy was affected by material properties such as surface texture, translucency, and color of dental stones and impression materials.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Reem Abdulrahim (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: