STYLUS-BASED TACTILE PROFILOMETER CAN PRODUCE RELIABLE RESULTS OF GLASS IONOMERS’ SURFACE ROUGHNESS MEASUREMENT: INTER- AND INTRA-OPERATOR RELIABILITY STUDY
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.
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.
Once an article is accepted for publication, MSJ requests a transfer of copyrights for published articles.
COPYRIGHT TRANSFER FORM FOR
REVISTA MEDICO-CHIRURGICALĂ A SOCIETĂȚII DE MEDICI ȘI NATURALIȘTI DIN IAȘI /
THE MEDICAL-SURGICAL JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF PHYSICIANS AND NATURALISTS FROM IASI
We, the undersigned authors of the manuscript entitled
warrant that this manuscript, which is submitted for publication in the REVISTA MEDICO-CHIRURGICALĂ, has not been published and it is not under consideration for publication in another journal.
- we give the consent for publication in the REVISTA MEDICO-CHIRURGICALĂ, in printed and electronic format and we transfer unconditioned and complete the copyright of this manuscript to the REVISTA MEDICO-CHIRURGICALĂ, in the event of its acceptance.
- the manuscript does not break the intellectual property rights of any other person.
- we have read the submitted version of the manuscript and we are fully responsible for the content.
Names and signatures of authors / copyright owners (the following sequence is the authorship of the article):
N.B. All the authors must sign this form