Evaluation of Microhardness of Different Posterior Composite Resin Materials

Year 2008, Volume: 35 Issue: 2 - Volume: 35 Issue: 2, 61 - 66, 01.05.2008

Işıl Şaroğlu Sönmez Oba Aylin Akbay Seda Ekici

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the microhardness of a new posterior composite resin, Clearfil Majesty Posterior Kuraray , with two different posterior composite resins; Filtek Silorane 3M-ESPE and Quixfil Dentsply . Ten specimens of each of the three materials totaly 30 were fabricated using a plexiglas mold of 9 mm in diameter and 1,5 mm in depth. All of the materials were polymerized according to the manufacturer’s instructions. After the polymerization strips were removed and stored at 37ºC in distilled water for 24 hours. Specimens were subjected to surface microhardness tester Digital Display Microhardness Tester HSV-1000 with 100 g force applied for 20 s on the surface. Three indentations were made and measured on each specimen and an average value was determined from each specimen. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test. There were statistically significant differences among the microhardness of the composite materials. The ranking from least to most were as follows; Filtek Silorane < Quixfil < Clearfil Majesty Posterior. The microhardness of Clearfil Majesty posterior was higher than the posterior composite materials tested.

Keywords

Hardness, Composite Resins, Dental Materials

Farklı posterior kompozit rezin materyallerin mikrosertlik özelliklerinin değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, yeni üretilmiş bir posterior kompozit materyal olan Clearfil MajestyPosterior Kuraray ile iki farklı posterior kompozitmetaryali; Filtek Silorane 3M-ESPE ve Quixfil Dentsply ’i mikrosertlik özellikleri yönündenkarşılaştırmaktır.Her materyalden 10’ar adet olmak üzeretoplam 30 adet örnek, 9 mm çapında ve 1,5 mmyüksekliğinde pleksiglass kalıplar kullanılarakhazırlandı. Hazırlanan örnekler üretici firmalarınönerilerine uygun olarak polimerize edildi ve37ºC’de distile su içerisinde 24 saat bekletildi.Kompozit disklere yüzey mikrosertlik test cihazında Digital Display Microhardness Tester HSV–1000 20 sn süre ile 100 gr yük uygulandı. Her örnektenüçer defa yüzey sertlik ölçümü alınarak, bu üçölçümün ortalaması her bir örnek için tek bir değerolarak kabul edildi. İstatistiksel analizler tek yönlüANOVA ve Tukey testi ile yapıldı.Grupların mikrosertlik değerleri arasındakifarkın istatistiksel olarak anlamlı olduğu belirlenmiştir. Materyallerin mikrosertlik değerlerininküçükten büyüğe doğru sıralaması şu şekildedir;Filtek Silorane < Quixfil < Clearfil MajestyPosterior. Clearfil Majesty Posterior’un yüzeymikrosertlik değerleri, test edilen diğer iki posteriorkompozite göre daha yüksektir

Keywords

Sertlik, Kompozit Rezinler, Dental Materyaller

References

• Simmer JP, Hu JC. Dental enamel formation and its impact on clinical dentistry. J Dent Educ 2001; 65: 896-905.
• Jendresen MD. Clinical behavior of 21st- century adhesives and composites. Quintessence Int 1993; 24: 659-62.
• Mitra SB, Wu D, Holmes BN. An application of nanotechnology in advanced dental materials. J Am Dent Assoc 2003; 134: 1382-90.
• Manhart J, Kunzelmann KH, Chen HY, Hickel R. Mechanical properties of new composite restorative materials. J Biomed Mater Res 2000; 53: 353-61.
• Poskus LT, Placido E, Cardoso PE. Influence of placement techniques on Vickers and Knoop hard- ness of class II composite resin restorations. Dent Mater 2004; 20: 726-32.
• Willems G, Celis JP, Lambrechts P, Braem M, Vanherle G. Hardness and Young's modulus determined by nanoindentation technique of filler particles of dental restorative materials compared with human enamel. J Biomed Mater Res 1993; 27: 747-55.
• Anusavice KJ. Phillips’ Science of Dental Materials 10.ed, Philadelphia WB Saunders 1996: 69-71.
• Ferracane JL. Correlation between hardness and degree of conversion during the setting reaction of unfilled dental restorative resins. Dent Mater 1985; 1:11-4.
• Rueggeberg FA, Craig RG. Correlations of parameters used to estimate monomer conversion in a light cured composite. J Dent Res 1988; 67: 932-7.
• Braem M, Finger W, Van Doren VE, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Mechanical properties and filler fraction of dental composites. Dent Mater 1989; 5: 346-8.
• Moraes RR, Marimon JLM, Schneider LFJ, Sinhoreti MAC, Correr-Sobrinho L, Boeno M. Effects of months of aging in water on hardness and surface roughness of two microhybrid dental com- posites. J Prosthodont 2008; 17: 323-6.
• Kawai K, Iwami Y, Ebisu S. Effect of resin monomer composition on toothbrush wear resis- tance. J Oral Rehabil 1998; 25: 264-8.
• Say EC, Civelek A, Nobecourt A, Ersoy M, Güleryüz C. Wear and microhardness of different resin composite materials. Oper Dent 2003; 28: 628- 34.
• Beun S, Glorieux T, Devaux J, Vreven J, Leloup G. Characterization of nanofilled compared to universal and microfilled composites. Dent Mater 2007; 23: 51-9.
• Kim KH, Ong JL, Okuno O. The effect of filler loading and morphology on the mechanical properties of contemporary composites. J Prosthet Dent 2002; 87: 642-9.
• Neves AD, Discacciati JA, Oréfice RL, Yoshida MI. Influence of the power density on the kinetics of photopolymerization and properties of dental composites. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2005; 72: 393-400.
• Shahdad SA, McCabe JF, Bull S, Rusby S, Wassell RW. Hardness measured with traditional Vickers and Martens hardness methods. Dent Mater 2007; 23: 1079-85.
• Chung KH, Greener EH. Correlation between the degree conversion, filler concentration and mechanical properties of posterior composite resins. J Oral Rehabil 1990; 17: 487-94.
• Chung KH. The relationship between com- position and properties of posterior resin composites. J Dent Res 1990; 69: 852-6.
• St Germain H, Swartz ML, Phillips RW, Moore BK, Roberts TA. Properties of microfilled composite resins as influenced by filler content. J Dent Res 1985; 64: 155-60.
• http://www.kuraraydental.com/viewprod- uct.php?pid=32
• Badra VV, Faraoni JJ, Ramos RP, Palma- Dibb RG. Influence of different beverages on the microhardness and surface roughness of resin com- posites. Oper Dent 2005; 30: 213-9.
• Mayworm CD, Camargo SS Jr, Bastian FL. Influence of artificial saliva on abrasive wear and microhardness of dental composites filled with nanoparticles. J Dent 2008; 36: 703-10.
• Okte Z, Villalta P, García-Godoy F, Lu H, Powers JM. Surface hardness of resin composites after staining and bleaching. Oper Dent 2006; 31: 623-8.
• Yap AU, Tan SH, Wee SS, Lee CW, Lim EL, Zeng KY. Chemical degradation of composite restoratives. J Oral Rehabil 2001; 28: 1015-21.
• Başeren M. Surface roughness of nanofill and nanohybrid composite resin and ormocer-based tooth-colored restorative materials after several fi- nishing and polishing procedures. J Biomater Appl 2004; 19: 121-34.
• Türkün LS , Türkün M. The effect of one- step polishing system on the surface roughness of three esthetic resin composite materials. Oper Dent 2004; 29: 203-11
• Yazici AR, Müftü A, Kugel G. Three- dimensional surface profile analysis of different types of flowable restorative resins following diffe- rent finishing protocols. J Contemp Dent Pract 2007; 8: 9-17.
• Okte Z, Villalta P, Garcia-Godoy F, Garcia- Godoy F Jr, Murray P. Effect of curing time and light curing systems on the surface hardness of com- pomers. Oper Dent 2005; 30: 540-5.
• Silva KG, Pedrini D, Delbem AC, Cannon M. Microhardness and fluoride release of restorative materials in different storage media. Braz Dent J 2007; 18: 309-13.