Eight specimens were allocated in each subgroup (n = 8) (Groups 1 to 4) and surface roughness (Ra) was recorded at 3 different points selected on each specimen. The Ra was measured using a profilometer (model SJ-401, Mitutoyo, Kawasaki, Japan), which was calibrated prior to the assessment. A total of 3 measurements were obtained for each specimen and the arithmetic mean was calculated. This procedure was performed before and after simulated brushing with two dentifrices included in the study.
Sj 401
Manufactured by Mitutoyo
Sourced in Japan
The SJ-401 is a surface roughness tester manufactured by Mitutoyo. It is designed to measure the surface roughness of various materials. The device features a skid-type stylus that moves across the surface to detect its profile, which is then analyzed to provide roughness parameters. The SJ-401 is a versatile instrument suitable for a wide range of industrial and research applications.
Automatically generated - may contain errors
Lab products found in correlation
5 protocols using sj 401
1
Surface Roughness of Dental Specimens
2
Surface Roughness and Microhardness Analysis
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
After the EDT, the output responses were assessed in the terms of surface roughness (SR) and microhardness (MH) of the machined substrate. Microhardness tester (model: HM-220, make: Mitutoyo, Neuss, Germany) and surface roughness tester (model: SJ-401, make: Mitutoyo, Germany) was used to measure the microhardness (units: HV) and surface roughness (units: µm) respectively, by taking three readings at distinct points. The microhardness was measured by profiling a pyramidal imprint on the sample surface using a diamond indenter under low-force hardness scale (HV 0.5) with a test force-load of 4.9 N and for a dwell time of 10 s.
For determining the roughness of EDT surface, stylus method was employed to find the roughness value (Ra) with a profile resolution of 12 nm, and range of 80 μm having resolution of 0.001 μm. It was reported in the literature that higher surface roughness participated in cell anchoring, facilities better bone-implant adhesion due to the presence of micro-crack and pores [31 (link),32 (link),33 (link)]. Therefore, for further testing, the samples with higher surface roughness were sectioned from the workpiece by using wire-EDM.
For determining the roughness of EDT surface, stylus method was employed to find the roughness value (Ra) with a profile resolution of 12 nm, and range of 80 μm having resolution of 0.001 μm. It was reported in the literature that higher surface roughness participated in cell anchoring, facilities better bone-implant adhesion due to the presence of micro-crack and pores [31 (link),32 (link),33 (link)]. Therefore, for further testing, the samples with higher surface roughness were sectioned from the workpiece by using wire-EDM.
3
Surface Characterization of Materials
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
The surface topography was examined using scanning electron microscopy (SEM; S-4800, Hitachi, Tokyo, Japan) with a 5 kV acceleration voltage after drying and being sputter-coated (Model 681, Gatan, Pleasanton, CA, USA) with Au-Pd alloy. The surface roughness (Ra and Rz) was measured using a surface profilometer (SJ-401, Mitutoyo, Kanagawa, Japan). Three samples from each group were prepared, and three random fields were observed per sample.
The surface wettability was determined by the sessile drop method using a contact angle meter (OCA-15Pro, Dataphysics, Stuttgart, Germany). After dropping a 1 μm droplet of deionized water onto each specimen, images of the droplet were recorded, and the static contact angles were measured using ImageJ software (ImageJ, version 2, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA) with tangential line method. Three randomly selected points on each of the three samples were examined per group.
The surface chemical states of the specimens were analyzed using X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS; Kratos Analytical, Manchester, UK). Survey scans of 200-700 eV were recorded using a monochromatic Al Kα source (1,486.6 eV) with a 15 kV accelerating voltage. The binding energy of each spectrum was calibrated using the C1s peak (284.8 eV).
The surface wettability was determined by the sessile drop method using a contact angle meter (OCA-15Pro, Dataphysics, Stuttgart, Germany). After dropping a 1 μm droplet of deionized water onto each specimen, images of the droplet were recorded, and the static contact angles were measured using ImageJ software (ImageJ, version 2, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA) with tangential line method. Three randomly selected points on each of the three samples were examined per group.
The surface chemical states of the specimens were analyzed using X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS; Kratos Analytical, Manchester, UK). Survey scans of 200-700 eV were recorded using a monochromatic Al Kα source (1,486.6 eV) with a 15 kV accelerating voltage. The binding energy of each spectrum was calibrated using the C1s peak (284.8 eV).
4
Surface Roughness Measurement Protocol
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
The surface roughness was measured using a profilometer (model SJ-401, Mitutoyo, Kawasaki, Japan), which had been calibrated prior to the readings. Each of a total of 3 measurements was obtained after turning the specimen 120°, using a cutoff of 0.25 mm, and the arithmetic mean was calculated of the measurements taken before and after the bleaching procedures.
5
Surface Roughness Evaluation Protocol
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
The samples were submitted for roughness evaluation using a portable profilometer, SJ-401 (Mitutoyo, Kanagawa, Japan), which had been calibrated before the readings. The standard roughness (Ra) was measured using a static load of 5 N and a speed of 0.05 mm/s. Ra represents the arithmetic mean between the recorded peaks and valleys, while using a 0.25 mm cutoff to filter out any surface ripple. At each analysis time and on each surface, three measurements were made at different positions, and the arithmetic mean was calculated. Measurements were performed at baseline (T0), immediately after the procedures (T1), and after 1 (T2), 3 (T3) and 7 (T4) days of in situ and in vitro storage.
About PubCompare
Our mission is to provide scientists with the largest repository of trustworthy protocols and intelligent analytical tools, thereby offering them extensive information to design robust protocols aimed at minimizing the risk of failures.
We believe that the most crucial aspect is to grant scientists access to a wide range of reliable sources and new useful tools that surpass human capabilities.
However, we trust in allowing scientists to determine how to construct their own protocols based on this information, as they are the experts in their field.
Ready to get started?
Sign up for free.
Registration takes 20 seconds.
Available from any computer
No download required
Revolutionizing how scientists
search and build protocols!