Vickers microhardness comparison of 4 composite resins with different types of filler.
AbstractComposite resins are the material election to restored minimal invasive cavities; conversely, it is important to explore their mechanical properties of commercial available dental materials. Objective: To compare the Vickers microhardness (VHN) of four available commercial composite resins of standardized samples and methods. Methodology: Composite cylinders were performed in a Teflon mould. We use the follow composite resins (n=4/gp): Microhybrid resins [Feeling Lux (Viarden) and Amelogen Plus (Ultradent)], Hybrid resin [Te-Econom Plus (Ivoclar)] and Nanohybrid resin [Filtek Z350 (3M ESPE)]. All samples were incubated in distilled water at 37 ºC for five days. The test was carried out with microhardness indenter at 10 N, and a dwelling time of 10 s for 9 indentations across the specimens resulting in a total of 36 indentations for each group. Data were subject to Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test and ANOVA (post-hoc) Tukey test. Results: The VHN mean values corresponded from harder to softer as follow: Filtek Z350 (71.96±6.44) (p˂0.01)˃Amelogen Plus (59.90±4.40) (p˂0.05)˃Feeling lux (53.52±5.72)˃Te-Econom Plus (53.26±5.19). Conclusion: According to our results, the microhardness of the evaluated conventional composite resin can withstand the masticatory forces but nanohybrid composite resins showed better Vickers microhardness that clinically can results in suitable option for restored minimal invasion treatments.
2. Freitas M, Santos J, Fuks A, Bezerra A, Azevedo T. Minimal intervention dentistry procedures: a ten year retrospective study. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2014; 39: 64–67.
3. Da Silva Segalin A, Fernandez DM, de Oliveria Bauer JR, Loguercio AD, Reis A. Marginal adaptation and hardness of resin composite restorations activated with four energies. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2005; 17: 303–310.
4. Demarco FF, Collares K, Coelho-de-Souza FH, Correa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJ. Anterior composite restorations: A systematic review on long-term survival and reasons for failure. Dent Mater. 2015; 31: 1214-1224.
5. Ferracane JL. Hygroscopic and hydrolytic effects in dental polymer networks. Dent Mater. 2006; 22: 211–222.
6. Baroudi K, Rodrigues JC. Flowable Resin Composites. A Systematic Review and Clinical Considerations. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015; 9: ZE18–24.
7. Willems G, Lambrechts P, Braem M, Vanherle G. Composite resins in the 21st century. Quintessence Int. 1993; 24: 641–658.
8. Zandinejad AA, Atai M, Pahlevan A. The effect of ceramic and porous fillers on the mechanical properties of experimental dental composites. Dent Mater. 2006; 22: 382–387.
9. Cocco AR, de Oliveira da Rosa WL, da Silva AF, Lund RG, Piva E. A systematic review about antibacterial monomers used in dental adhesive systems: Current status and further prospects. Dent Mater. 2015. In press.
10. Lawson NC, Burgess JO. Wear of nanofilled dental composites at varying filler concentrations. J Biomed Mater Res-Part B Appl Biomater 2015; 103: 424-429.
11. Ilie N, Hickel R. Resin composite restorative materials. Aust Dent J. 2011; 56: 59–66.
12. Tauböck TT, Zehnder M, Schweizer T, Stark WJ, Attin T, Mohn D. Functionalizing a dentin bonding resin to become bioactive. Dent Mater. 2014; 30: 868–875.
13. Borba M, Della Bona A. Cecchetti D. Flexural strength and hardness of direct and indirect composites. Braz Oral Res. 2009; 23: 5–10.
14. Pallesen U, van Dijken JWV. A randomized controlled 27 years follow up of three resin composites in Class II restorations. J Dent 2015. In press.
15. Pallesen U, van Dijken JWV. A randomized controlled 30 years follow up of three conventional resin composites in Class II restorations. Dent Mater. 2015. In press.
16. Pires JA, Cvitko E, Denehy GE, Swift EJ. Effects of curing tip distance on light intensity and composite resin microhardness. Quintessence Int. 1993; 24: 517–521.
17. Groninger AIS, Soares GP, Sasaki RT, Ambrosano GMB, Lovadino JR, Aguiar FHB Microhardness of nanofilled composite resin light-cured by LED or QTH units with different times. Brazilian J Oral Sci. 2011; 10: 189–192.
18. Vandewalle KS, Roberts HW, Rueggeberg FA. Power distribution across the face of different light guides and its effect on composite surface microhardness. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2008; 20: 108–117.
19. Faggion CM. Guidelines for reporting pre-clinical in vitro studies on dental materials. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2012; 12: 182–189.
20. Scougall-Vilchis RJ, Hotta Y, Hotta M, Idono T, Yamamoto K. Examination of composite resins with electron microscopy, microhardness tester and energy dispersive X-ray microanalyzer. Dent Mant J. 2009; 28: 102-112.
21. Son S-A, Roh H-M, Hur B, Kwon Y-H, Park J-K. The effect of resin thickness on polymerization characteristics of silorane-based composite resin. Restor Dent Endod. 2014; 39: 310–318.
22. Sadat S, Pourhashemi SJ, Talebi M, Kiomarsi N, Javad M. Effect of organic acids in dental biofilm on microhardness of a silorane-based composite. Restor Dent Endod. 2015; 7658: 188–194.
23. Leprince JG, Leveque P, Nysten B, Gallez B, Devaux J, Leloup G. New insight into the ‘depth of cure’ of dimethacrylate-based dental composites. Dent Mater. 2012; 28: 512–520.
24. Porto IC, de Aguiar FH, Brandt WC, Liporoni PC. Mechanical and physical properties of silorane and methacrylate-based composites. J Dent. 2013; 41: 732–739.
25. Finan L, Palin WM, MoskwaN, McGinley EL, Fleming GJP. The influence of irradiation potential on the degree of conversion and mechanical properties of two bulk-fill flowable RBC base materials. Dent Mater. 2013; 29: 906–912.
26. Van Ende A, De Munck J, Van Landuyt KLV, Poitevin A, Peumans M, Meerbeek BV. Bulk-filling of high C-factor posterior cavities: Effect on adhesion to cavity-bottom dentin. Dent Mater. 2013; 29: 269–277.
27. Albino LGB, Rodrigues JA, Kawano Y, Cassoni A. Knoop microhardness and FT-Raman evaluation of composite resins: influence of opacity and photoactivation source. Braz Oral Res. 2011; 25: 267–273.
28. Ribeiro, BCI, Boaventura JMC, Brito-Goncalves J, Rastelli ANS, Bagnato VS, Saad JRC. Degree of conversion of nanofilled and microhybrid composite resins photo-activated by different generations of LEDs. J Appl Oral Sci. 2012; 20: 212–217.
29. Czasch P, Ilie N. In vitro comparison of mechanical properties and degree of cure of bulk fill composites. Clin Oral Investig. 2013; 17: 227–235.
30. Leprince JG, Palin WM, Vanacker J, Sabbagh J, Devaux J, Leloup G. Physico-mechanical characteristics of commercially available bulk-fill composites. J. Dent. 2014; 42: 993–1000.
31. Alshali RZ, Salim NA, Satterthwaite JD, Silikas N. Post-irradiation hardness development, chemical softening, and thermal stability of bulk-fill and conventional resin-composites. J Dent. 2015; 43: 209–218.
32. Khedmat S, Hashemi A, Dibaji F, Kharrazifard MJ. Effecto of chloroform, eucalyptol and orange oil solvents on the microhardness of human root dentine. J Dent. (Tehran) 2015; 12: 25-30.
33. Chuenarrom C, Benjakul P, Daosodsai P. Effect of indentation load and time on knoop and vickers microhardness tests for enamel and dentin. Mater Res. 2009; 12: 473–476.
34. Heintze SD, Rousson V, Hickel R. Clinical effectiveness of direct anterior restorations--a meta-analysis. Dent Mater. 2015; 31: 481–95.
The copyright of all the articles published in the J Oral Res. belongs to the Universidad de Concepción, Chile. All information about theJ Oral Res. is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution License 3.0 and must be cited correctly.