IADR Abstract Archives
Profilometric analysis of direct and indirect composites after brushing simulation
Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the abrasive wear of direct and indirect composites submited to brushing simulation.
Methods: One hundred and sixty composite cilinders (6 x 2 mm) were made using 4 direct composites (Grandioso; Filtek supreme; Opallis; Kalore) and 4 indirect composites (Grandio Blocs; Lava Ultimate; Brava; Cerasmart). The samples surfaces were submited to a baseline profilometric analysis using a contact profilometer (Mahr surf gd 25, software mahr surf xcr 20 4.50-07 sp3). To promote the abrasive wear, samples were submited to 100.00 cicles under simulated brushing using dentifrice/deionized water suspension (1:2 weight). After that, the surface profile was measured again to calculate the abrasive wear. For statistical analysis were used the tests One Way ANOVA (restorative material) and Tukey.
Results: ANOVA showed statistical diferences for tested materials (p=0.0001). The values obtained for abrasive wear were: Grandio Blocs: 6.41±2.44A; GrandioSO: 8.86±2.46AB; Lava: 10.77±2.65AB; Z350:11.42±2.72B; Cerasmart: 17.14±2.93C; Opallis: 28.94±8.99D; Kalore: 31.78±6.38D; and Brava:47.11±7.61E.
Conclusions: Grandio Blocs showed lower values for abrasive wear in comparison to the other restorative materials tested.
Methods: One hundred and sixty composite cilinders (6 x 2 mm) were made using 4 direct composites (Grandioso; Filtek supreme; Opallis; Kalore) and 4 indirect composites (Grandio Blocs; Lava Ultimate; Brava; Cerasmart). The samples surfaces were submited to a baseline profilometric analysis using a contact profilometer (Mahr surf gd 25, software mahr surf xcr 20 4.50-07 sp3). To promote the abrasive wear, samples were submited to 100.00 cicles under simulated brushing using dentifrice/deionized water suspension (1:2 weight). After that, the surface profile was measured again to calculate the abrasive wear. For statistical analysis were used the tests One Way ANOVA (restorative material) and Tukey.
Results: ANOVA showed statistical diferences for tested materials (p=0.0001). The values obtained for abrasive wear were: Grandio Blocs: 6.41±2.44A; GrandioSO: 8.86±2.46AB; Lava: 10.77±2.65AB; Z350:11.42±2.72B; Cerasmart: 17.14±2.93C; Opallis: 28.94±8.99D; Kalore: 31.78±6.38D; and Brava:47.11±7.61E.
Conclusions: Grandio Blocs showed lower values for abrasive wear in comparison to the other restorative materials tested.
