A comparison of microhardness of indirect composite restorative materials.

The purpose of this study was to compare the microhardness of four indirect composite resins. Forty cylindrical samples were prepared according to the manufacturer’s recommendations using a Teflon mold. Ten specimens were produced from each tested material, constituting four groups (n=10) as follows: G1 - Artglass; G2 - Sinfony; G3 - Solidex; G4 - Targis. Microhardness was determined by the Vickers indentation technique with a load of 300g for 10 seconds. Four indentations were made on each sample, determining the mean microhardness values for each specimen. Descriptive statistics data for the experimental conditions were: G1 - Artglass (mean ±standard deviation: 55.26 ± 1.15HVN; median: 52.6); G2 - Sinfony (31.22 ± 0.65HVN; 31.30); G3 - Solidex (52.25 ± 1.55HVN; 52.60); G4 - Targis (72.14 ± 2.82HVN; 73.30). An exploratory data analysis was performed to determine the most appropriate statistical test through: (I) Levene's for homogeneity of variances; (II) ANOVA on ranks (Kruskal-Wallis); (III) Dunn's multiple comparison test (0.05). Targis presented the highest microhardness values while Sinfony presented the lowest. Artglass and Solidex were found as intermediate materials. These results indicate that distinct mechanical properties may be observed at specific materials. The composition of each material as well as variations on polymerization methods are possibly responsibles for the difference found in microhardness. Therefore, indirect composite resin materials that guarantee both good esthetics and adequate mechanical properties may be considered as substitutes of natural teeth.

[1]  P. Bush,et al.  A comparison of the wear resistance and hardness of indirect composite resins. , 2001, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[2]  H. Matsumura,et al.  Wear and surface roughness of current prosthetic composites after toothbrush/dentifrice abrasion. , 2000, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[3]  E. Duke,et al.  Indirect composite resin materials for posterior applications. , 1999, Compendium of continuing education in dentistry.

[4]  F. Rueggeberg,et al.  Comparison of wear-resistance of Class V restorative materials. , 1998, Journal of esthetic dentistry.

[5]  J L Ferracane,et al.  In vitro Wear of Composite with Varied Cure, Filler Level, and Filler Treatment , 1997, Journal of dental research.

[6]  B. Touati,et al.  Second generation laboratory composite resins for indirect restorations. , 1997, Journal of esthetic dentistry.

[7]  B. Lang,et al.  A regression analysis of filler particle content to predict composite wear. , 1997, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[8]  Y. Sato,et al.  Hardness and fracture toughness of four commercial visible light-cured composite resin veneering materials. , 1995, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[9]  K F Leinfelder,et al.  Posterior composite resins: the materials and their clinical performance. , 1995, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[10]  R. Noort Introduction to Dental Materials , 1994 .

[11]  Hoard Rj,et al.  The indirect aesthetic inlay/onlay. , 1993 .

[12]  R. Hoard The indirect aesthetic inlay/onlay. , 1993, Journal.

[13]  J L Ferracane,et al.  Using posterior composites appropriately. , 1992, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[14]  K. Leinfelder Using composite resin as a posterior restorative material. , 1991, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[15]  E. Davis,et al.  Effects of composite restorations on resistance to cuspal fracture in posterior teeth. , 1987, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[16]  B. K. Moore,et al.  Materials Science Effect of Filler Content and Size on Properties of Composites , 1985, Journal of dental research.

[17]  R. Bowen Adhesive bonding of various materials to hard tooth tissues. IX. The concept of polyfunctional surface-active comonomers. , 1975, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[18]  R. Bowen Adhesive Bonding of Various Materials to Hard Tooth Tissues. II. Bonding to Dentin Promoted by a Surface-active Comonomer , 1965, Journal of dental research.

[19]  M. Buonocore A Simple Method of Increasing the Adhesion of Acrylic Filling Materials to Enamel Surfaces , 1955, Journal of dental research.