IADR Abstract Archives
Sub-Surface Microhardness Of Bioactive Dental Restorative Materials
Objectives: Our previous study showed that hydroxyapatite (HA) was formed on the surfaces of Cention specimens stored in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). This study was conducted to assess if the surface HA formation has any effect on the sub-surface’s microhardness of Cention and other restorative materials after placement in PBS.
Methods: Four restorative materials (n = 10) were studied: Cention N (Ivoclar Vivadent) (C), ACTIVA™ BioACTIVE-RESTORATIVE™ (Pulpdent) (A), Filtek™ Bulk Fill Flowable Restorative (3M) (FF), and Fuji IX GP® (GP). Ten disc-shaped specimens of each material, 3 mm thick and 6 mm diameter, were created by placing the materials in a mold and cured (DEMI™, Kerr) following the manufacturers’ instructions. The specimens were wet-ground polished sequentially ending with 800 grit sandpaper using EcoMet™250, Buehler. Five samples from each group were randomly selected to be stored in 10mL PBS for 14 days while 5 remaining samples were stored in 10 mL distilled water for 14 days. Each solution was replaced every week. The specimens were then removed and washed thoroughly with distilled water and dried at room temperature. Each sample was embedded in an acrylic resin block and cut in the sagittal plane. The cut surfaces were polished. One half of each specimen was used for Vickers microhardness assessment using MicroMet2104 (Buehler). Microhardness was measured at three standardized points distributed evenly on the flat area along the diameter 25 µm below the surface. The average microhardness for each sample was used for analysis.
Results: There was a significant difference in the sub-surface microhardness of Cention N treated with PBS compared to those treated with distilled water. The microhardness between the four restorative materials were significantly different in both the control and experimental groups.
Conclusions: The sub-surface microhardness of Cention N samples treated with PBS were significantly higher than the other experimental samples.
Methods: Four restorative materials (n = 10) were studied: Cention N (Ivoclar Vivadent) (C), ACTIVA™ BioACTIVE-RESTORATIVE™ (Pulpdent) (A), Filtek™ Bulk Fill Flowable Restorative (3M) (FF), and Fuji IX GP® (GP). Ten disc-shaped specimens of each material, 3 mm thick and 6 mm diameter, were created by placing the materials in a mold and cured (DEMI™, Kerr) following the manufacturers’ instructions. The specimens were wet-ground polished sequentially ending with 800 grit sandpaper using EcoMet™250, Buehler. Five samples from each group were randomly selected to be stored in 10mL PBS for 14 days while 5 remaining samples were stored in 10 mL distilled water for 14 days. Each solution was replaced every week. The specimens were then removed and washed thoroughly with distilled water and dried at room temperature. Each sample was embedded in an acrylic resin block and cut in the sagittal plane. The cut surfaces were polished. One half of each specimen was used for Vickers microhardness assessment using MicroMet2104 (Buehler). Microhardness was measured at three standardized points distributed evenly on the flat area along the diameter 25 µm below the surface. The average microhardness for each sample was used for analysis.
Results: There was a significant difference in the sub-surface microhardness of Cention N treated with PBS compared to those treated with distilled water. The microhardness between the four restorative materials were significantly different in both the control and experimental groups.
Conclusions: The sub-surface microhardness of Cention N samples treated with PBS were significantly higher than the other experimental samples.
3328733_File000000.jpg