IADR Abstract Archives
Effect of two different lubricants on the surface microhardness of nano-composites
Objectives: The aim of this study is to evaluate the effects of two different lubricants on the micro-hardness of three different nano-composites (Clearfil Majesty Esthetic -CME- (Kuraray Medical Inc, Tokyo, Japan), Charisma Smart -S-(Heraeus Kulzer, Dormagen, Germany), Filtek Ultimate -F- (3M ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA).
Methods: Methods: Ninety disc-shaped specimens for each resin composite were prepared in nine groups (n=10): Group 1A-B-C : Composite discs (CME, S, F) was cured against a polyester matrix,;Group 2 A-B-C: Composite discs instrument were wetted with GC Primer (GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) to smooth the composite surface, which was cured against a polyester matrix; Group 3A-B-C: Composite instrument was wetted with Kerr Modeling Resin (Kerr Dental, Orange, CA) to smooth the composite surface, which was cured against a polyester matrix. Samples were immersed into distilled water and Vickers microhardness were measured 24 hours after curing. VHN were measured from three points from each samples Data were analized using two way analysis of varience and the Tukey’s test (p < 0.05).
Results: Results: GC and Kerr lubricants significantly decreased the microhardness of C, S, F. (p=0,0001). F samples (57,15±2,12) were showed highest microhardness in control group. CME composite discs which were wetted with GC (30,21±2,22) showed higher microhardness than Kerr (25,73±1,50) (p<0.05). S composite discs which were wetted with Kerr (24,19±2,41) showed higher microhardness than GC(20,81±0,39)(p<0.05); however, CME(25,73±1,50) and S(24,19±2,41) composites are both has no significant microhardness difference when wetted with Kerr. (p >0.05).
Conclusions: Conclusions: The use of lubricants decreased the microhardness of all nano- composites used in this study. The effect of lubricant on surface hardness depends on the type of resin composite. In clinical practise the adverse effects of lubricants might be alleviated by a proper finishing and polishing procedure.
Methods: Methods: Ninety disc-shaped specimens for each resin composite were prepared in nine groups (n=10): Group 1A-B-C : Composite discs (CME, S, F) was cured against a polyester matrix,;Group 2 A-B-C: Composite discs instrument were wetted with GC Primer (GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) to smooth the composite surface, which was cured against a polyester matrix; Group 3A-B-C: Composite instrument was wetted with Kerr Modeling Resin (Kerr Dental, Orange, CA) to smooth the composite surface, which was cured against a polyester matrix. Samples were immersed into distilled water and Vickers microhardness were measured 24 hours after curing. VHN were measured from three points from each samples Data were analized using two way analysis of varience and the Tukey’s test (p < 0.05).
Results: Results: GC and Kerr lubricants significantly decreased the microhardness of C, S, F. (p=0,0001). F samples (57,15±2,12) were showed highest microhardness in control group. CME composite discs which were wetted with GC (30,21±2,22) showed higher microhardness than Kerr (25,73±1,50) (p<0.05). S composite discs which were wetted with Kerr (24,19±2,41) showed higher microhardness than GC(20,81±0,39)(p<0.05); however, CME(25,73±1,50) and S(24,19±2,41) composites are both has no significant microhardness difference when wetted with Kerr. (p >0.05).
Conclusions: Conclusions: The use of lubricants decreased the microhardness of all nano- composites used in this study. The effect of lubricant on surface hardness depends on the type of resin composite. In clinical practise the adverse effects of lubricants might be alleviated by a proper finishing and polishing procedure.