IADR Abstract Archives
Effect of two different modeling resins on the surface microhardness of ceramic based composites
Objectives: The aim of this study is to evaluate the effects of two different modeling resin on the micro-hardness of three different ceramic based-composites.
Methods: Ninety disc-shaped (10.0 mm diameter x 2.0 mm height) specimens for each resin composite were prepared in nine groups (n=10): Group 1: Composite discs (Estellite Asteria -EA- (Tokuyama Dental, Japan) was cured against a polyester matrix; Group 2 Ceram.X one -C- (Dentsply, Germany) ) was cured against a polyester matrix; Group 3: Admira Fusion -F- (Voco GmbH, Cuxhaven, Germany) was cured against a polyester matrix,;Group 4: All composite discs instrument were wetted with GC Primer -GC- (GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) to smooth the composite surface, which was cured against a polyester matrix; Group 5: All composite discs was wetted with Kerr Modeling Resin -Kerr- (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 (VHN) 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: GC and Kerr modeling resins significantly decreased the microhardness of EA, C, F. (p=0,0001). Microhardness of EA (36,77±1,60), C (37,25±2,78), F(35,24±1,67) samples in control group hasn’t showed significant difference (p=0,099). C samples which were wetted with GC (30,55±1,91) showed higher mirohardness than Kerr (27,71±1,38). However, EA samples has showed the lowest microhardness when wetted with GC (26,66±3,16) (p=0,0001); Microhardness of C (30,55±1,91) and F (29,74±1,07) samples hasn’t showed significant difference (p>0,05). F samples (29,05±1,39) showed the highest microhardness when wetted with Kerr (p=0,0001) and Microhardness of C(27,71±1,38) and EA(27,26±1,66) samples hasn’t showed significant difference ( p>0,05).
Conclusions: Modeling resins decreased the microhardness of all ceramic based composites used in this study. The effect of modeling resin on surface hardness depends on the type of resin composite. In clinical practise the converse effects of modeling resins might be decreased by a proper polishing and finishing procedure.
Methods: Ninety disc-shaped (10.0 mm diameter x 2.0 mm height) specimens for each resin composite were prepared in nine groups (n=10): Group 1: Composite discs (Estellite Asteria -EA- (Tokuyama Dental, Japan) was cured against a polyester matrix; Group 2 Ceram.X one -C- (Dentsply, Germany) ) was cured against a polyester matrix; Group 3: Admira Fusion -F- (Voco GmbH, Cuxhaven, Germany) was cured against a polyester matrix,;Group 4: All composite discs instrument were wetted with GC Primer -GC- (GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) to smooth the composite surface, which was cured against a polyester matrix; Group 5: All composite discs was wetted with Kerr Modeling Resin -Kerr- (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 (VHN) 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: GC and Kerr modeling resins significantly decreased the microhardness of EA, C, F. (p=0,0001). Microhardness of EA (36,77±1,60), C (37,25±2,78), F(35,24±1,67) samples in control group hasn’t showed significant difference (p=0,099). C samples which were wetted with GC (30,55±1,91) showed higher mirohardness than Kerr (27,71±1,38). However, EA samples has showed the lowest microhardness when wetted with GC (26,66±3,16) (p=0,0001); Microhardness of C (30,55±1,91) and F (29,74±1,07) samples hasn’t showed significant difference (p>0,05). F samples (29,05±1,39) showed the highest microhardness when wetted with Kerr (p=0,0001) and Microhardness of C(27,71±1,38) and EA(27,26±1,66) samples hasn’t showed significant difference ( p>0,05).
Conclusions: Modeling resins decreased the microhardness of all ceramic based composites used in this study. The effect of modeling resin on surface hardness depends on the type of resin composite. In clinical practise the converse effects of modeling resins might be decreased by a proper polishing and finishing procedure.