IADR Abstract Archives
Microhardness of different resin composites of enamel and dentin shades
Objectives: To compare the hardness of four different resin composites of enamel and dentin shades (XRV Herculite®, Herculite ® XRV Ultra, Enamel Plus HRi® and IPS Empress ® Direct) with Knoop test.
Methods: Using a plastic caster, 80 resin composite discs (N=80) were prepared and submitted to microhardness evaluation. 10 specimens were prepared and assigned to one of the 8 groups: 1) XRV Herculite® enamel shade, 2) XRV Herculite® dentin shade, 3) Herculite® XRV Ultra enamel shade, 4) Herculite® XRV Ultra dentin shade, 5) Enamel Plus HRi® enamel shade, 6) Enamel Plus HRi® dentin shade, 7) IPS Empress® Direct enamel shade, 8) IPS Empress® Direct dentin shade.
All the specimens were kept in distilled water at 37ºC for 24 hours and then tested with the Knoop microhardness test. Five (5) indentations were performed by specimen with a load of 50 g for 5 seconds. The data were analysed according to One-Way ANOVA and Scheffé post-hoc test, with a confidance level of 95%.
Results: There was no statistically significant difference between the resin composites Enamel Plus Hri® dentin shade (261,916±17,148) and XRV Herculite® dentin shade (181,816±10,074). On the other hand, the difference found between the resin composite Enamel Plus Hri® dentin shade and the other resin composites included in this study was statistically significant: XRV Herculite® enamel shade (172,734±13,153), Herculite® XRV Ultra enamel shade (167,860±22,399), Herculite® XRV Ultra dentin shade (173,710±16,903), Enamel Plus HRi® enamel shade (155,154±16,518), IPS Empress® Direct enamel shade (115,788±11,210) and IPS Empress® Direct dentin shade (110,488±9,416).
Conclusions: The Enamel Plus Hri® dentin shade seems to have a higher microhardness than the other composites evaluated.
Methods: Using a plastic caster, 80 resin composite discs (N=80) were prepared and submitted to microhardness evaluation. 10 specimens were prepared and assigned to one of the 8 groups: 1) XRV Herculite® enamel shade, 2) XRV Herculite® dentin shade, 3) Herculite® XRV Ultra enamel shade, 4) Herculite® XRV Ultra dentin shade, 5) Enamel Plus HRi® enamel shade, 6) Enamel Plus HRi® dentin shade, 7) IPS Empress® Direct enamel shade, 8) IPS Empress® Direct dentin shade.
All the specimens were kept in distilled water at 37ºC for 24 hours and then tested with the Knoop microhardness test. Five (5) indentations were performed by specimen with a load of 50 g for 5 seconds. The data were analysed according to One-Way ANOVA and Scheffé post-hoc test, with a confidance level of 95%.
Results: There was no statistically significant difference between the resin composites Enamel Plus Hri® dentin shade (261,916±17,148) and XRV Herculite® dentin shade (181,816±10,074). On the other hand, the difference found between the resin composite Enamel Plus Hri® dentin shade and the other resin composites included in this study was statistically significant: XRV Herculite® enamel shade (172,734±13,153), Herculite® XRV Ultra enamel shade (167,860±22,399), Herculite® XRV Ultra dentin shade (173,710±16,903), Enamel Plus HRi® enamel shade (155,154±16,518), IPS Empress® Direct enamel shade (115,788±11,210) and IPS Empress® Direct dentin shade (110,488±9,416).
Conclusions: The Enamel Plus Hri® dentin shade seems to have a higher microhardness than the other composites evaluated.