IADR Abstract Archives
Microhardness and Surface Characteristics of Restorative Resin-composite Containing Organic Fillers.
Objectives: This research compared the surface microhardness and characteristics of restorative resin-composite containing with and without organic fillers.
Methods: Ten resin-composite blocks (4 mm × 4mm ×2 mm) were prepared using a standardized mold and light-cured following the manufacturers’ recommendation for each type: MetafilCX, Fantasista V, and Clearfil AP-X ES2 containing organic fillers; Clearfil AP-X and Filtek Z350XT with inorganic fillers. After being embedded in a PVC tube using epoxy resin, a resin-composite block surface was wet polished with silicon carbide abrasive papers grit #400, #600, #1000, #1200 and 0.05 µm alumina paste, respectively, using a polishing machine. All polished specimens in each group (n = 10) were ultrasonically cleaned in distilled water for 15 min and immersed in 37 °C water for 24 h. Microhardness measurement using the Vicker hardness test was performed for all specimens with thirteen indentations, each indentation using 100 g of loading for 15 s. The surface characteristics of tested specimens were examined using a light microscope at ×500 magnification.
Results: Means±standard deviations of microhardness values (VHN) had statistically significant differences between groups except for Fantasista V and Clearfil AP-X ES2 groups using one-way ANOVA and Bonferroni multiple comparisons (p < 0.05). The resin-composite containing organic fillers, Fantasista V (46.88±3.85), Clearfil AP-X ES2 (44.12±3.07), and MetafilCX (32.06±2.99), had lower microhardness values than the ones containing only inorganic fillers, Clearfil AP-X (115.26±1.25) and Filtek Z350XT (89.89±2.67). However, the polished surface of MetafilCX and Fantasista V appeared smoothest compared with the other groups.
Conclusions: The results suggest that organic fillers reduce the microhardness value, but their high adhesion to the resin matrix leads to fewer fillers dislodgement and higher surface smoothness of polished restorative resin-composite compared with those without organic fillers.
Methods: Ten resin-composite blocks (4 mm × 4mm ×2 mm) were prepared using a standardized mold and light-cured following the manufacturers’ recommendation for each type: MetafilCX, Fantasista V, and Clearfil AP-X ES2 containing organic fillers; Clearfil AP-X and Filtek Z350XT with inorganic fillers. After being embedded in a PVC tube using epoxy resin, a resin-composite block surface was wet polished with silicon carbide abrasive papers grit #400, #600, #1000, #1200 and 0.05 µm alumina paste, respectively, using a polishing machine. All polished specimens in each group (n = 10) were ultrasonically cleaned in distilled water for 15 min and immersed in 37 °C water for 24 h. Microhardness measurement using the Vicker hardness test was performed for all specimens with thirteen indentations, each indentation using 100 g of loading for 15 s. The surface characteristics of tested specimens were examined using a light microscope at ×500 magnification.
Results: Means±standard deviations of microhardness values (VHN) had statistically significant differences between groups except for Fantasista V and Clearfil AP-X ES2 groups using one-way ANOVA and Bonferroni multiple comparisons (p < 0.05). The resin-composite containing organic fillers, Fantasista V (46.88±3.85), Clearfil AP-X ES2 (44.12±3.07), and MetafilCX (32.06±2.99), had lower microhardness values than the ones containing only inorganic fillers, Clearfil AP-X (115.26±1.25) and Filtek Z350XT (89.89±2.67). However, the polished surface of MetafilCX and Fantasista V appeared smoothest compared with the other groups.
Conclusions: The results suggest that organic fillers reduce the microhardness value, but their high adhesion to the resin matrix leads to fewer fillers dislodgement and higher surface smoothness of polished restorative resin-composite compared with those without organic fillers.