IADR Abstract Archives
Effect of a Surface Sealant Material to Surface Hardness and Roughness on Different Composites
Objectives: Dental composite resins are commonly used materials for the replacement of hard dental tissues. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of a surface sealant material application to the surface hardness and roughness on different composites.
Methods: Sixty disc-shaped specimens (10x3 mm) prepared for the tests and assigned into 6 groups (n=10). Discs in the group 1 prepared with Herculite XRV Ultra (Kerr Manifacturing Co.), group 2 with Beautifil Bulk Restoratif (SHOFU, Kyoto, Japan), group 3 with Filtek BulkFill Posterior Restorative (3M-ESPE, Germany), group 4 with Herculite XRV Ultra, group 5 with Beautifil Bulk Restoratif, group 6 with Filtek BulkFill Posterior Restorative. The restorative materials were light-cured under a polyester strip and glass according to the manufacturer reccomendations. After curing the samples were polished using medium polishing discs for ten seconds and changed the discs after five specimens. Biscover LV polymeric resin was applied to groups 4, 5, 6. The samples stored in distilled water at 37ºC for 24 hours. Subsequently, for surface hardness of the groups 1, 2, 3 Vicker’s microhardness measured in a microhardness testing machine and a profilometer was used for assessing surface roughness to all groups. The data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA at the significance level of 0.05.
Results: There were no significant differences in microhardness and roughness between the test groups of each restorative material. According to the results group 3 showed highest surface hardness and group 4 showed lower surface roughness values.
Conclusions: In the light of this study, the highest hardness values were obtained with silane treated ceramic restorative after polishing. Although the smoothest surfaces were obtained with the use of glaze material after polishing discs resulted in significantly lower Ra values.
Methods: Sixty disc-shaped specimens (10x3 mm) prepared for the tests and assigned into 6 groups (n=10). Discs in the group 1 prepared with Herculite XRV Ultra (Kerr Manifacturing Co.), group 2 with Beautifil Bulk Restoratif (SHOFU, Kyoto, Japan), group 3 with Filtek BulkFill Posterior Restorative (3M-ESPE, Germany), group 4 with Herculite XRV Ultra, group 5 with Beautifil Bulk Restoratif, group 6 with Filtek BulkFill Posterior Restorative. The restorative materials were light-cured under a polyester strip and glass according to the manufacturer reccomendations. After curing the samples were polished using medium polishing discs for ten seconds and changed the discs after five specimens. Biscover LV polymeric resin was applied to groups 4, 5, 6. The samples stored in distilled water at 37ºC for 24 hours. Subsequently, for surface hardness of the groups 1, 2, 3 Vicker’s microhardness measured in a microhardness testing machine and a profilometer was used for assessing surface roughness to all groups. The data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA at the significance level of 0.05.
Results: There were no significant differences in microhardness and roughness between the test groups of each restorative material. According to the results group 3 showed highest surface hardness and group 4 showed lower surface roughness values.
Conclusions: In the light of this study, the highest hardness values were obtained with silane treated ceramic restorative after polishing. Although the smoothest surfaces were obtained with the use of glaze material after polishing discs resulted in significantly lower Ra values.