STYLUS-BASED TACTILE PROFILOMETER CAN PRODUCE RELIABLE RESULTS OF GLASS IONOMERS’ SURFACE ROUGHNESS MEASUREMENT: INTER- AND INTRA-OPERATOR RELIABILITY STUDY

  • C. DUDÁS George Emil Palade” University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Sciences and Technology Tîrgu Mureș
  • Bernadette KEREKES-MÁTHÉ “George Emil Palade” University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Sciences and Technology Tîrgu Mureș
  • Enikő JÓZSA “George Emil Palade” University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Sciences and Technology Tîrgu Mureș
  • D. MOLNAR “George Emil Palade” University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Sciences and Technology Tîrgu Mureș
  • Krisztina MÁRTHA George Emil Palade” University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Sciences and Technology Tîrgu Mureș

Abstract

The roughness measuring instruments, which analyze the roughness degree of sample surface using a stylus, can give limited information about surface alterations. The alternative three-dimensional surface mapping methods have better performance, but their spread is limited. The aim of this study was to determine the intra- and inter-operator reliability of surface roughness measurements by three independent operators with a tactile stylus-based profilometer on glass ionomer specimens. Material and methods: Ten light-cured glass ionomer specimens, prepared according to the manufacturer’s instructions from premeasured unit dose capsules of GC Fuji II LC CAPSULE, have been selected. Three previously trained operators measured individually in four diagonals the surface roughness of samples with MarSurf XR1 roughness measuring instrument. After ten days the measurements were repeated using the same protocol. The Average Roughness was used to characterize the surface texture. Intra-class correlation coefficients were calculated for both individual and group measurements to check the level of reliability of the used technique. Results: The inter- and intra-operator reliability of the measurements showed high degrees, the coefficient values being in the good (0.75-0.90) and excellent (>0.90) categories of reliability. Conclusions: Linear surface roughness measurements of dental materials using a tactile roughness measuring device can be performed with high reliability by single or multiple users. This procedure has its limitations and further studies, with more materials, are warranted in this topic.

Author Biographies

C. DUDÁS, George Emil Palade” University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Sciences and Technology Tîrgu Mureș

Sciences and Technology Tîrgu Mureș,
Faculty of Dental Medicine
Department of Tooth and Dental Arch Morphology

Bernadette KEREKES-MÁTHÉ, “George Emil Palade” University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Sciences and Technology Tîrgu Mureș

Faculty of Dental Medicine
Department of Tooth and Dental Arch Morph

Enikő JÓZSA, “George Emil Palade” University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Sciences and Technology Tîrgu Mureș

Faculty of Dental Medicine
Department of Tooth and Dental Arch Morphology

D. MOLNAR, “George Emil Palade” University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Sciences and Technology Tîrgu Mureș

Faculty of Dental Medicine
Department of Tooth and Dental Arch Morpholo

Krisztina MÁRTHA, George Emil Palade” University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Sciences and Technology Tîrgu Mureș

Faculty of Dental Medicine
Department of Orthodontic

References

1. Kakaboura A, Fragouli M, Rahiotis C, et al. Evaluation of surface characteristics of dental composites using profilometry, scanning electron, atomic force microscopy and gloss-meter. J Mater Sci Mater Dent 2007; 18: 155-163.
2. Mathia TG, Pawlus P, Wieczorowski M. Recent trends in surface metrology. Wear 2011; 271: 494-508.
3. Townsend A, Senin N, Blunt L, et al. Surface texture metrology for metal additive manufacturing: a review. Precis Eng 2016; 46: 34-47.
4. Kerekes-Máthé B, Dudás C, Csergő N, et al. Inter-Operator Reliability of Dental Morphometric Measurements. J Interdiscip Med 2018; 3: 225-228.
5. Harris EF, Smith RN. Accounting for measurement error : A critical but often overlooked process. Arch Oral Biol 2009; 54: 107-117.
6. Stephien Krzysztof. Testing the accuracy of surface roughness measurements carried out with a portable profilometer. Key Eng Mater 2015; 637: 69-73.
7. Canabarro A, Figueiredo F, Paciornik S, et al. Two- and Three-Dimensional Profilometer Assessments to Determine Titanium Roughness. Scanning J Scanning Microsc 2009; 31: 174-179.
8. DeFisher S, Fess EM. Comparison of contact and non-contact asphere surface metrology devices. Proc SPIE 2013; 8884: 1-10.
9. Müller R, Büttner P. A critical discussion of intraclass correlation coefficients. Stat Med 1994; 13: 2465-2476.
10. Koo TK, Li MY. A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research. J Chiropr Med 2016; 15: 155-163.
11. Mehta S, Bastero-Caballero RF, Sun Y, et al. Performance of intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) as a reliability index under various distributions in scale reliability studies. Stat Med 2018; 37: 2734-2752.
12. Field J, Waterhouse P, German M. Quantifying, and qualifying surface changes on dental hard tissues in vitro. J Dent 2010; 38: 182-190.
13. Bucur SM, Chibelean M, Păcurar M, Sita DD, Zetu IN. Ethical considerations in orthodontics and dentofacial orthopaedics. Rev Rom Bioet 2014; 12: 80-84.
14. Campos JA, de Oliveira AL, dos Santos Domingos PA, et al. Laboratory tests with quality data in dentistry. J Res Dent 2013; 1: 288-297.
15. Zaharia SM, Pop MA, Chicos LA, et al. An Investigation on the Reliability and Degradation of Polycrystalline Silicon Solar Cells Under Accelerated Corrosion Test. Mater Plast 2017; 54: 466-472.
16. Croitoru EI, Oancea G, Constantin N. Impact Testing on Composite Panels of Fiberglass , Carbon and Kevlar-Carbon. A comparison and validity study. Mater Plast 2017; 54: 700-707.
17. Chappard D, Degasne I, Huré G, et al. Image analysis measurements of roughness by texture and fractal analysis correlate with contact profilometry. Biomaterials 2003; 24: 1399-1407.
18. Poon CY, Bhushan B. Comparison of surface roughness measurements by stylus profiler, AFM, and non-contact optical profiler. Wear 1995; 190: 76-88.
19. Stedman M, Lindsey K. Limits Of Surface Measurement By Stylus Instruments. Proc SPIE 1988; 1009: 56-61.
20. Conroy M, Armstrong J. A comparison of surface metrology techniques. J Phys Conf Ser 2005; 13: 458-465.
21. Lonardo PM, Lucca DA, De Chiffre L. Emerging Trends in Surface Metrology. CIRP Ann 2002; 51: 701-723.
22. Heurich E, Beyer M, Jandt KD, et al. Quantification of dental erosion - A comparison of stylus pro-filometry and confocal laser scanning microscopy ( CLSM ). Dent Mater 2009; 26: 326-336.
23. Lehmann P. Optical versus tactile geometry measurement - alternatives or counterparts. Opt Meas Syst Ind Insp III 2003; Proc SPIE: 183-196.
24. Osten W, Garbusi E, Fleischle D, et al. Optical metrology - from the laboratory to the real world. Proc SPIE 2010; 7387: 1-17.
Published
2020-12-23