Catalina Iulia Saveanu, Oana Dragos, Daniela Anistoroaei, Anca Melian, Irina Bamboi, Octavian Boronia, Alexandra Ecaterina Saveanu, Irina Gradinaru
Background: The surface roughness, the material structure and the adhesion of restorative materials at dental hard tissue level is a current topic, numerous researches highlighting this fact. The aim of this study was that there are differences in the surface of structure analyzed by AFM (Atomic Force Microscopy) and by SEM (Scanning Electron Microscopy) between NCR (nanocomposite resin), MRC (micro-filled resin composite), O (ormocer), C (compomer) and G (giomer); (2) Methods: A descriptive study of the surface of materials used in secondary prevention of dental caries. For AFM analysis were prepared samples of NCR, MRC, O, C and G. The roughness was analyzed for each specimen for a size of 1× 1μm (micrometers), with a scan rate of 0.5 Hz, 256 × 256 pixels with 300 points. The dimensional topographic analysis was performed by analysis software (XEI – Image-Processing and Analysis) and the 3D topographic data was analyzed by using 3D non-contact optical profilometry with a data analysis software (Nano Scope III, Version 5.12r2, Digital Instruments, Santa Barbara, CA, USA). Microstructures and the interface between of biomaterials and teeth analysis using SEM; (3) Results: The results obtained by AFM profilometric analysis and by SEM highlighted differences in the roughness of the materials with Ra (arithmetic mean deviation of the evaluated profile) and their adhesion at the enamel level. The roughness analysis highlighted differences for the studied materials in contrast to NCR, this having a Ra level of 10 to 20 times higher than the other studied materials, respectively NCR-Ra=10.75 nm (nanometers) compared to MRC-Ra= 0.49 nm, O-Ra=0.70 nm, C-Ra=1.56 nm and G-Ra=1.45 nm; (4) Conclusions: The most favorable results were obtained by O followed by G, C, MRC and NCR.