IADR Abstract Archives
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF VICKERS MICROHARDNESS OF COMPOSITE RESIN USING THREE LED CURING LAMPS
Objectives: To determine the Vickers microhardness of composite resin with the use of three LED lamps photocuring of different trademark.
Methods: Experimental study with in vitro design, the purposive sample consists of 45 test bodies, made of composite resin (3MTM Filtek TM P60). The variables analyzed were Vickers Microhardness and type of lamp used. The Elipar®, Powerlux® and Woodpecker® were compared. Every composite resin was loaded with 500 grams and were observed the default values with digital microscopy. The data were entered into a Excel® spreadsheet and analyzed in statistical software SPSS. The t-Student test was applied.
Results: The Vickers microhardness after curing was with Elipar® (IC 85.29HV - 91.91HV), Powerlux® (IC 86.23HV - 90.77HV) and Woodpecker® (IC 89.93HV - 92.87HV). The t test showed no statistically significant differences between Elipar® and Power lux® (p = 0.8). Moreover, between Elipar® and Woodpecker® (p=0.007), and between Powerlux® and Woodpecker® (p=0.0001) showed significant differences.
Conclusions: The composites used in this in vitro study showed an acceptable microhardness above the required standards (> 80HV) after the photopolymerization with the three lamps: Elipar®, Powerlux® and Woodpecker®. However, the Woodpecker® lamp provided higher values of microhardness vickers, compared to the other two lamps. The results showed a statistically significant difference between woodpecker® and the other two lamps. The Lower cost lamps show a similar behavior to the highlight lamp.
Methods: Experimental study with in vitro design, the purposive sample consists of 45 test bodies, made of composite resin (3MTM Filtek TM P60). The variables analyzed were Vickers Microhardness and type of lamp used. The Elipar®, Powerlux® and Woodpecker® were compared. Every composite resin was loaded with 500 grams and were observed the default values with digital microscopy. The data were entered into a Excel® spreadsheet and analyzed in statistical software SPSS. The t-Student test was applied.
Results: The Vickers microhardness after curing was with Elipar® (IC 85.29HV - 91.91HV), Powerlux® (IC 86.23HV - 90.77HV) and Woodpecker® (IC 89.93HV - 92.87HV). The t test showed no statistically significant differences between Elipar® and Power lux® (p = 0.8). Moreover, between Elipar® and Woodpecker® (p=0.007), and between Powerlux® and Woodpecker® (p=0.0001) showed significant differences.
Conclusions: The composites used in this in vitro study showed an acceptable microhardness above the required standards (> 80HV) after the photopolymerization with the three lamps: Elipar®, Powerlux® and Woodpecker®. However, the Woodpecker® lamp provided higher values of microhardness vickers, compared to the other two lamps. The results showed a statistically significant difference between woodpecker® and the other two lamps. The Lower cost lamps show a similar behavior to the highlight lamp.
IMAGES
2328408_File000000.jpg
2328408_File000000.jpg