Influence of different thermopolymerization methods on composite resin microhardness

Dias, Marlon Ferreira; Espíndola-Castro, Luís-Felipe; Lins-Filho, Paulo Cardoso; Teixeira, Hilcia-Mezzalira; Silva, Claudio-Heliomar-Vicente; Guimarães, Renata-Pedrosa

doi:10.4317/jced.56772

Cited by 8 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Vickers hardness signified a moderate resistance to indentation under functional stresses, many studies has been proposed that Vickers hardness is closely related to wear resistance and long-term stability in the oral environment. 30 It is reported that there were significantly higher surface hardness values of nano scale composites compared with the hybrid filled composites, 29 which is in consistent with our results. Nanofilled resin composite Z350 (98.3 ± 3.8 HV) indicated better hardness value compared with nanohybrid filler resin composite TNC (62.3 ± 1.7 HV) and HM (63.9 ± 1.5 HV).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Influence of filler types on wear and surface hardness of composite resin restorations

Chen,

Sun,

Luo

et al. 2023

Journal of Applied Biomaterials & Functional Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Wear and surface hardness of resin composites are of relevance from the clinical standpoint. With the incorporation of novel filler system, more studies need to be performed to investigate newly marketed resin composites. The objective of this study was to investigate the abrasive wear and surface hardness of dental restorative with different filler types. Methods: Nanohybrid filled Harmonize (HM) and Tetric N-Ceram (TNC), microhybrid filled Filtek Z250 (Z250), nanofilled Filtek Z350 (Z350) were included in the study. Twelve cylindrical resin composites specimens with 10 mm in diameter and 6 mm in thickness were prepared for abrasive wear test. Eight hundred cycles under 17 kg load were conducted for final wear by CW3-1 wear machine. The specimen was cleaned with an ultrasonic unit for 3 min followed with drying procedure. After measurement of weight loss and the density of specimens, the specimens were kept for measurement of surface hardness. Surface hardness was measured using a micro-hardness tester with a Vickers diamond indenter after polishing. Three specimens of each material were observed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) after the abrasion to evaluate the morphology of the surface. Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), followed by Tukey HSD test ( α = .05). Results: Z250 performed the least volume wear loss (41.1 ± 2.1 mm3), as well as the hardest value (102.7 ± 2.9 HV). There was no significant difference with the volume wear loss ( p = 1.000) and surface hardness ( p = 0.874) of HM and TNC. SEM images of nanohybrid filled HM and TNC represented smoother surface compared with other types of resin composites. Conclusions: Microhybrid Z250 showed the highest wear resistance and surface hardness, nanofilled and nanohybrid resin composites may still face the insufficient of wear and surface hardness quality.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Influence of filler types on wear and surface hardness of composite resin restorations

Chen,

Sun,

Luo

et al. 2023

Journal of Applied Biomaterials & Functional Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…All specimens were again stored immersed in distilled water, in closed and properly identified containers, at room temperature, and remained closed for 48 hs until the moment of their analysis 17 .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of different composite resin finishing and polishing protocols by confocal laser scan microscopy

Souza

Silva²,

Dias³

et al. 2022

Braz. J. Oral Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: This study aimed to analyze the influence of finishing and polishing (F/P) protocols on resin surface through roughness (Ra) values and laser scan microscopy observations. Methods: Forty-eight (n=48) resin specimens were sorted into four groups (n=12), according to the type of resin used: Filtek Z250 (Z250), Filtek Z350 (Z350), Filtek One Bulk Fill (BF), Filtek P60 (P60). The specimens were sorted into six groups according to the type of F/P system used (n=2/group): Control group, Diamond bur (KG Sorensen), Soflex Pop-On Discs (3M ESPE), Soflex Spiral (3M ESPE), Dura Gloss (American Burs), and Praxis (TDV). Results: The highest roughness values (Ra) were attributed to BF group for all F/P systems, except for the Soft-Lex PopOn discs. The Soft-Lex PopOn, Spiral, and Praxis discs presented a better performance for the surface treatment of the tested composite resins. Regardless of the restorative material, the use of diamond bur or single-step abrasive rubber (Dura Gloss) were associated with the highest Ra values. Conclusion: The effect of F/P systems on Ra is material-dependent and instrument or system-dependent.

show abstract

“…The thickness of composite specimens was 2-mm to ensure appropriate light penetration and uniform polymerization [ 38 ]. Composite specimens were kept in a dry dark condition for 24 h after light curing before testing to prohibit any light passage to the made samples [ 39 ]. As well, to reach the maximum DC as considerable increase in DC takes place even after the removal of the light curing source, lasting up to 24 h after polymerization [ 40 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Vickers microhardness test was used for this study as it is relatively simple, suitable for composite materials due to its higher stability, and reliable for obtaining adequate results [ 39 ]. Vickers microhardness analysis is reported as an indicator for the degree of polymerization of resin composites and used commonly as indirect technique to evaluate DC.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of shelf-storage temperature on degree of conversion and microhardness of composite restorative materials

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The pre-cure temperature is considered an important parameter that affects the polymerization kinetics and the properties of composite restoration. As dissension exists about the effect of storing composite restorative materials in refrigerator, this study aimed to assess the effect of shelf-storage temperature on degree of conversion (DC) and microhardness of three composite restorative materials with different matrix systems. Methods Three commercially-available composite restorative materials were used in this study; an Ormocer-based composite (Admira Fusion, Voco GmbH), a nanoceramic composite, (Ceram.X SphereTEC One, Dentsply Sirona GmbH), and a nanohybrid composite (Tetric N-Ceram, Ivoclar Vivadent AG). Regarding DC and microhardness tests, 60 disc-shaped composite specimens for each test were randomly divided into 3 groups (n = 20) according to the restorative material used. Each group was divided into 2 subgroups (n = 10) according to the composite storage temperature; stored at room temperature or stored in the refrigerator at 4°–5 °C. DC was evaluated using a Fourier-transform infrared spectrometer coupled to an attenuated total reflectance accessory. Microhardness was evaluated using micro-Vickers hardness tester under a load of 50 g with a dwell time of 10 s. The results were analyzed by ANOVA, post-hoc LSD, and independent t-tests at a significance level of p < 0.05. Results Regarding DC test all groups showed statistically significant differences at both storage temperature. The Ormocer-based composite had the highest mean values. There was a statistically significant difference between all room-stored groups and their corresponding groups stored at refrigerator (p < 0.05). For microhardness test, all groups exhibited also statistically significant differences at both storage temperatures with the Ormocer-based composite having the highest mean values. A statistically significant difference between both room-stored and refrigerator-stored groups has been observed also (p < 0.05). Conclusions Refrigeration of resin-composite might have a deleterious effect on DC and microhardness of the tested composite restorative materials with different matrix systems. Moreover, the differences in the formulations of composite matrix have a potential impact on DC and microhardness.

show abstract

Influence of different thermopolymerization methods on composite resin microhardness

Cited by 8 publications

References 16 publications

Influence of filler types on wear and surface hardness of composite resin restorations

Influence of filler types on wear and surface hardness of composite resin restorations

Evaluation of different composite resin finishing and polishing protocols by confocal laser scan microscopy

Effect of shelf-storage temperature on degree of conversion and microhardness of composite restorative materials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About