IADR Abstract Archives
Surface Gloss of CAD/CAM and Direct Composite Resin Materials
Objectives: To evaluate the surface gloss of CAD/CAM and direct composite resin materials before and after simulation of mechanical and chemical degradation by the use of home care products.
Methods: Samples fabricated form 6 CAD/CAM blocks (VITABLOCS Mark II, Paradigm MZ 100, VITA Hybrid Ceramic (exp), VITA ENAMIC, Kerr (exp), LAVA Ultimate) and 3 direct composite resins (Filtek Supreme XTE, Venus Diamond and Filtek Silorane). Samples were polished with abrasive silicon carbide paper. Then, randomly divided into three groups (n= 12) according to the different surface treatments. Group 1 was subjected to 5,15,30 and 60 min of brushing. Group 2 was immersed in fluoride gel (Elmex® Gel) for 1 hr. Group 3 was immersed in mouthwash solution (Listerine) for 12 hr. Surface gloss of each sample was measured before and after the assigned surface treatment using a gloss meter, then delta GU was calculated. Statistical analysis was performed using ANOVA and Duncan post-hoc test, with a level of significance set at 0.05.
Results: Significant differences were detected between the different surface treatments (p=0.000). Brushing induced the highest amount of gloss loss, followed by Elmex gel and Listerine application. Overall, five materials presented the highest and comparable surface gloss after all tests: Vitablocs Mark II, VITA Hybrid Ceramic (exp), VITA ENAMIC, LAVA Ultimate and one direct composite: Filtek Supreme XTE.
Conclusions: Both mechanical and chemical degradation induced by home care products affect the material’s surface gloss. Depending on the material, some home care products should be used with precaution.
Methods: Samples fabricated form 6 CAD/CAM blocks (VITABLOCS Mark II, Paradigm MZ 100, VITA Hybrid Ceramic (exp), VITA ENAMIC, Kerr (exp), LAVA Ultimate) and 3 direct composite resins (Filtek Supreme XTE, Venus Diamond and Filtek Silorane). Samples were polished with abrasive silicon carbide paper. Then, randomly divided into three groups (n= 12) according to the different surface treatments. Group 1 was subjected to 5,15,30 and 60 min of brushing. Group 2 was immersed in fluoride gel (Elmex® Gel) for 1 hr. Group 3 was immersed in mouthwash solution (Listerine) for 12 hr. Surface gloss of each sample was measured before and after the assigned surface treatment using a gloss meter, then delta GU was calculated. Statistical analysis was performed using ANOVA and Duncan post-hoc test, with a level of significance set at 0.05.
Results: Significant differences were detected between the different surface treatments (p=0.000). Brushing induced the highest amount of gloss loss, followed by Elmex gel and Listerine application. Overall, five materials presented the highest and comparable surface gloss after all tests: Vitablocs Mark II, VITA Hybrid Ceramic (exp), VITA ENAMIC, LAVA Ultimate and one direct composite: Filtek Supreme XTE.
Conclusions: Both mechanical and chemical degradation induced by home care products affect the material’s surface gloss. Depending on the material, some home care products should be used with precaution.