scholarly journals Comparison of time-dependent changes in the surface hardness of different composite resins

2013 ◽  
Vol 07 (S 01) ◽  
pp. S020-S025 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suat Ozcan ◽  
Ihsan Yikilgan ◽  
Mine Betul Uctasli ◽  
Oya Bala ◽  
Zeliha Gonca Bek Kurklu
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Surface Hardness ◽  
Multiple Comparisons ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Time Dependent ◽  
Bottom Surface ◽  
Significance Level ◽  
Hardness Tester ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Hardness Values

ABSTRACT Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the change in surface hardness of silorane-based composite resin (Filtek Silorane) in time and compare the results with the surface hardness of two methacrylate-based resins (Filtek Supreme and Majesty Posterior). Materials and Methods: From each composite material, 18 wheel-shaped samples (5-mm diameter and 2-mm depth) were prepared. Top and bottom surface hardness of these samples was measured using a Vicker′s hardness tester. The samples were then stored at 37°C and 100% humidity. After 24 h and 7, 30 and 90 days, the top and bottom surface hardness of the samples was measured. In each measurement, the rate between the hardness of the top and bottom surfaces were recorded as the hardness rate. Statistical analysis was performed by one-way analysis of variance, multiple comparisons by Tukey′s test and binary comparisons by t-test with a significance level of P = 0.05. Results: The highest hardness values were obtained from each two surfaces of Majesty Posterior and the lowest from Filtek Silorane. Both the top and bottom surface hardness of the methacrylate based composite resins was high and there was a statistically significant difference between the top and bottom hardness values of only the silorane-based composite, Filtek Silorane (p < 0.05). The lowest was obtained with Filtek Silorane. The hardness values of all test groups increased after 24 h (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Although silorane-based composite resin Filtek Silorane showed adequate hardness ratio, the use of incremental technic during application is more important than methacrylate based composites.

scholarly journals Differences of methacrylate and silorane based composite resins surface hardness after 40% hydrogen peroxide application

2013 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Amalina Putri ◽  
Rahmi Alma Farah Adang ◽  
Opik Taofik Hidayat
Keyword(s):  
Hydrogen Peroxide ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Artificial Saliva ◽  
Surface Hardness ◽  
Hardness Test ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Average Value ◽  
Hardness Tester ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Difference

Composite restoration is frequently found on teeth before doing any bleaching treatment. Hydrogen peroxide is a bleaching agent which enable transition to one of the composite physical properties. The aim of this research was to observe the difference of surface hardness between methacrylate and silorane based composite resin after application of 40% hydrogen peroxide. This true experiment involved 36 specimens from two different disc-shaped methacrylate and silorane based composite resins, with 18 specimens methacrylate and 18 silorane. Every specimen groups were immersed in artificial saliva solution and divided into two groups; the first group consisted of 9 specimens of control which were tested directly using microvickers hardness tester and another group consisted of 9 specimens which had been added by 40% hydrogen peroxide for hardness test. The result showed the different surface hardness average value of metachrylate and silorane based composite resin after application of 40% hydrogen peroxide. The surface hardness of methacrylate and silorane based composite resins was 41.8 VHN and 33.7 VHN (p>0.05) with t-test, respectively. From this study concluded that there was no significant difference between methacrylate and silorane based composite resins after 40% hydrogen peroxide application.

scholarly journals PERENDAMAN DENGAN PERASAN BUAH JERUK LEMON (Citrus lemon) DAPAT MENURUNKAN KEKERASAN RESIN KOMPOSIT NANOHYBRID

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 49-53
Author(s):  
IGN Bagus Tista ◽  
◽  
IGAA Hartini Hartini ◽  
IA. Gitasanthi KDA ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Applied Pressure ◽  
Surface Hardness ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Control Group Design ◽  
Mechanical Condition ◽  
Hardness Tester ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Nanohybrid Composite

Composite resin is a restoration material that is often used because the composite resin has good aesthetic value like mimetic the teeth color. Composite resins have a physical and mechanical condition. One of the mechanical condition is hardness. The surface hardness of composite resins is the surface resistance of the composite resin material to the applied pressure. One of the factors influencing composite hardness is the food and beverages consumed. Consuming acidic drinks continuously for a long time period can erode composite resin filling. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of soaking into a citrus lemon on the hardness of nanohybrid composite resin. This type of research was true experimental with pre-test post-test with control group design using 24 composite resin samples which are divided into 4 groups with 6 samples each. The groups in this study were nanohybrid composite resins soaked with citrus lemon and aqua dest for 60 minutes and 120 minutes. The hardness tested using a Vicker hardness tester. The results of the study using the LSD (Least Significant Difference) test showed that the significance value of p= 0.014 (p<0.05), which means that the use of citrus lemon for 120 minutes affected the hardness of nanohybrid composite resin. In conclusion, soaking with citrus lemon for 120 minutes reduces more the hardness of nanohybrid composite resin compared with soaking for 60 minutes.

Properties of New Glass-Ionomer Restorative Systems Marketed for Stress-Bearing Areas

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 104-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
D Fuhrmann ◽  
D Murchison ◽  
S Whipple ◽  
K Vandewalle
Keyword(s):  
Fracture Toughness ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Surface Hardness ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Hardness Tester ◽  
Resin Coating ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Post Hoc

SUMMARY Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the properties (fracture toughness, surface hardness) of newer conventional glass-ionomer restorative materials that are marketed for posterior stress-bearing areas compared with more traditional glass-ionomer restorative materials marketed for non–load-bearing areas and composite-resin restorative materials. Methods and Materials: Notched-beam fracture toughness specimens were created in a mold with each tested material (Equia Forte, GC America, with and without a surface coating of Equia Forte Coat; Ketac Universal, 3M/ESPE; ChemFil Rock, Dentsply; Fuji IX GP Extra, GC; Ionostar Molar, VOCO; Filtek Z250, 3M/ESPE; Filtek Supreme Ultra, 3M/ESPE) and fractured using a universal testing machine after 24 hours of storage. Hardness values were determined on the surface of the fracture toughness specimens using a hardness tester. Data were analyzed with a one-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test per property (alpha=0.05). Results: The composite-resin restorative materials had significantly greater fracture toughness than the glass-ionomer materials. There was no significant difference in fracture toughness between the glass-ionomer materials. The use of a resin coating significantly increased the surface hardness of the newer glass ionomer marketed for stress-bearing areas. Conclusions: Fracture toughness was not improved with the newer glass-ionomer restorative materials marketed for stress-bearing areas compared to the conventional glass-ionomer materials, however a resin coating provided greater surface hardness.

Surface Hardness Properties of Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cements and Polyacid-Modified Composite Resins

2004 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 42-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yusuf Ziya Bayindir ◽  
Mehmet Yildiz
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Water Storage ◽  
Surface Hardness ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Bottom Surface ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cements ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Hardness Values ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Abstract In this study the top and bottom surface hardness of two polyacid-modified composite resins (PMCRs), one resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC), and one composite resin were evaluated. The affect of water storage on their hardness was also investigated. The study was conducted using four different groups, each having five specimens obtained from fiberglass die molds with a diameter of 5 mm and a height of 2 mm. Measurements were made on the top and bottom surface of each specimen and recorded after 24 hours and again at 60 days. All tested materials showed different hardness values, and the values of top surfaces of the specimens were found to be higher than the bottom surface in all test groups. There was no statistical difference in the Vickers hardness (HV) values when the test specimens were kept in water storage. In conclusion Hytac displayed microhardness values higher than Vitremer and Dyract. We found the order of HV values to be Surfil > Hytac > Dyract > Vitremer, respectively. Vitremer presented the lowest microhardness level and Surfil the highest. Citation Bayindir YZ, Yildiz M. Surface Hardness Properties of Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cements and Polyacid-Modified Composite Resins. J Contemp Dent Pract 2004 November;(5)4:042-049.

scholarly journals Effect of preheating on the cytotoxicity of bulk-fill composite resins

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad Esmaeel Ebrahimi Chaharom ◽  
Mahmoud Bahari ◽  
Leila Safyari ◽  
Hossein Safarvand ◽  
Hajar Shafaei ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Room Temperature ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Human Fibroblasts ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Significance Level ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Different Types ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Post Hoc ◽  
Cylindrical Samples

Background . Due to the effect of pre-heating on the degree of conversion of composite resins and the possible effect on cytotoxicity, the effect of pre-heating of bulk-fill composite resins was investigated on cytotoxicity in this study. Methods. In this study, three different types of composite resin were used, including Tetric N-Ceram Bulk-Fil, Xtrafil, and Xtrabase. From each composite resin, 10 cylindrical samples (5 mm in diameter and 4 mm in height) were prepared, with five samples preheated to 68°C, and the other five samples polymerized at room temperature (25°C). Twenty-four hours after polymerization, cytotoxicity was assessed by MTT assay on human fibroblasts. Statistical analysis of data was carried out with two-way ANOVA and Sidak Post-Hoc. The significance level of the test was determined at 0.05. Results. There was no statistically significant difference between the mean percentage of cytotoxicity in terms of pre-heating (P>0.05), but the cytotoxicity of the studied composite resins was significantly different (P<0.001). The cytotoxicity of Tetric N-Ceram Bulk-fil composite resin was higher than that of the two other composite resins. Conclusion. Pre-heating of bulk-fill composite resin did not affect their cytotoxicity. In addition, the cytotoxicity of different bulk-fill composite resins was not the same.

scholarly journals Benefit of Glycerine on Surface Hardness of Hybrid & Nanofill Resin Composite

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 28
Author(s):  
Ferriza Tri Mardianti ◽  
Sukaton Sukaton ◽  
Galih Sampoerno
Keyword(s):  
Free Radicals ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Surface Hardness ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Polymerization Process ◽  
Tooth Structure ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Light Curing ◽  
Composite Resin Restorations

Background: Composite resins restoration is a treatment for tooth structure loss due to pathological conditions. Longevity of composite resins restoration can be affected by surface hardness restoration. Glycerin can increase surface hardness restoration with inhibit bond oxygen and free radicals on polymerization composite resins. Purpose: Analyze the increase surface hardness composite resins restoration after glycerin application before light-curing composite resins. Review(s): Of the six journals included in this literature review, five journals reported significant differences because of the obstacles in the polymerization process of the composite resin when composite contact with light-curing will activate the photoinitiator to produce highly reactive free radicals, free radicals will break the double chain carbon bonds of monomers and form single bonds of free radicals with monomers. Bonding of free radicals with monomers will produce polymeric bonds (degree of conversion) which affects the level of surface hardness of the filling. While one journal noted no significant difference in the surface hardness of composite resin after glycerin application. Conclusion: The use of glycerin before light-curing can increase the surface hardness composite resin restorations.

scholarly journals Pengaruh Aplikasi Gliserin pada Kekerasan Resin Komposit Nanofiller dengan Perendaman Cuka Apel

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 87
Author(s):  
Raditya Nugroho ◽  
Putri Nila Kharisma ◽  
Roedy Budirahardjo
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Test Group ◽  
High Hardness ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Filling Material ◽  
Entire Study ◽  
Apple Cider ◽  
Hardness Tester ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Post Test

Composite resin is a type of filling material that is often used because it has good bonds with dentine and enamel and has a high aesthetic value. Nanofiller composite resin has high hardness, good polishing, color accuracy, and good translucency. The hardness of composite resins can change caused by low pH beverage. Purpose: To determine the differences in effect of glycerin application on hardness of nanofiller composite resins with immersion of apple cider vinegar. The type of research used was experimental laboratories with a pretest and post test group design. Samples were 24 immersion in apple vinegar for 60 and 120 minutes. Measurement of hardness using the Vicker Hardness Tester to determine the hardness value. Data analysis was performed using One Way Anova and Post-Hoc LSD tests.There is a significant difference in the value of composite resin hardness in the entire study group. The highest hardness value was found in the group with the application of glycerin and without immersion, while the lowest value was found in the group without the application of glycerin and immersion in 120 minutes.

Surface properties of composite resins with and without fluorides for bracket bonding / Propriedades de superfície de resinas compostas com e sem fluoretos para colagem de suportes

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (7) ◽  
pp. 67267-67276
Author(s):  
Emillyn Jones Greijal Dias Holanda ◽  
José Guilherme Neves ◽  
Milton Santamaria-Jr ◽  
Silvia Amélia Scudeler Vedovello ◽  
Ana Rosa Costa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Surface Properties ◽  
Color Change ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Hardness Tester ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Post Test ◽  
Roughness Analysis ◽  
Diamond Paste ◽  
Penetration Time

The aim of this study was to evaluate the surface properties of orthodontic resins with and without fluoride. Forty disks, measuring 2 mm thick by 6 mm in diameter, were made of 4 bracket-bonding composite resins (n=10): Transbond Plus Color Change-3M/Unitek (TPCC); Transbond XT- 3M/Unitek (TXT), Orthocem -FGM (OC); Orthocem UV Trace-FGM (OCUV). The discs were photoactivated for 40 seconds with irradiance of 450 mW/cm2 and manually polished in sequence by silicon carbide sandpapers with 1200 and 2000 grain size and finished with diamond paste and felt disc. The surface microhardness analysis was performed using a Shimadzu Micro Hardness Tester HMV-2,000 (Shimadzu Corporation, Kyoto, Japan) with a load of 50 gF and a 5 second penetration time. Surface roughness readings were taken using a Surf Corder Roughness Meter (SE 1700- Kosaka, Lisboa-Portugal). For data analysis, ANOVA (one-way) was used, followed by Tukey's post-test (?=0.05). The microhardness results showed a difference (p?0.05) in the means of the orthodontic resins between TPCC and TXT with the other groups. After the surface roughness analysis, the averages showed that TPCC resin showed higher roughness compared to OC and OCUV (p?0.05), and there was no statistical difference with TXT. It was concluded that statistically the composite resins with fluoride showed significant difference regarding hardness and roughness.

scholarly journals Impact of refrigeration on the surface hardness of hybrid and microfilled composite resins

2009 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fernando Henrique Ruppel Osternack ◽  
Danilo Biazzetto de Menezes Caldas ◽  
Rodrigo Nunes Rached ◽  
Sérgio Vieira ◽  
Jeffrey A. Platt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Room Temperature ◽  
Surface Hardness ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Knoop Hardness ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Bottom Surface ◽  
Steel Mold ◽  
Polymerization Condition ◽  
Post Hoc

This in vitro study evaluated the Knoop hardness of the composite resins Charisma® (C) and Durafill VS® (D) polymerized in 3 different conditions: at room temperature (A) (23 ± 1°C); refrigerated at 4 ± 1°C and immediately photo-activated after removal from the refrigerator (0); and, refrigerated at 4 ± 1°C and photo-activated after a bench time of 15 min at room temperature (15). One hundred and twenty specimens (4 mm diameter and 2 mm depth) were made using a stainless steel mold and following manufacturer's instructions. All specimens were tested immediately after polymerization (I) and after 7 days of water storage in the dark at room temperature (7d). The data were subjected to ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey's test (a=0.05). On the top surface, CAI was statistically similar to C15I and DAI to D15I (p>0.05). On the bottom surface, CAI presented higher hardness values when compared to COI and C15I (p<0.05). The D groups showed no significant differences (p>0.05) on the bottom surfaces for any tested polymerization condition. After 7 days of storage, the Knoop hardness decreased significantly (p<0.05) for groups C7d and D7d except for C07d, which was not different from COI at either surface (p>0.05). D07d showed higher Knoop hardness (p<0.05) values on the top surface when compared to the other groups.

scholarly journals Influence of shade and irradiation time on the hardness of composite resins

2007 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 231-234 ◽  
Author(s):  
Álvaro Della Bona ◽  
Vinícius Rosa ◽  
Dileta Cecchetti
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Irradiation Time ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Light Irradiation ◽  
Hardness Tester ◽  
Different Depths ◽  
Study Hypothesis ◽  
Dark Shade

This study tested the following hypotheses: 1. increasing light irradiation time (IT) produces greater values of superficial hardness on different depths (0 and 3 mm); and 2. a dark shade composite (A3) needs longer IT than a light shade composite (A1) to produce similar hardness. Disk-shaped specimens (n=24 per shade) were fabricated using a 3-mm-thick increment of composite resin (Z100). Specimens were randomly assigned to 3 groups (n=8) according to the IT (400 mW/cm2) at the upper (U) surface: A1-10 and A3-10: 10 s; A1-20 and A3-20: 20 s; A1-40 and A3-40: 40 s. Specimens were stored in black lightproof containers at 37ºC for 24 h before indentation in a hardness tester. Three Vickers indentations were performed on the U and lower (L) surfaces of each specimen. The indent diagonals were measured and the hardness value calculated. The results were analyzed statistically by ANOVA and Tukey's test (alpha=0.05). Statistically significant differences were found between U and L surfaces of each composite shade-IT combination (p=0.0001) and among the ITs of same shade-surface combination (p=0.0001), except between groups A1-20U and A1-40U, confirming the study hypothesis 1 and partially rejecting the hypothesis 2.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document