Evaluation of Surface Roughness and Hardness of Newer Nanoposterior Composite Resins after Immersion in Food-Simulating Liquids.
Profilometric analysis
Vickers hardness test
scanning electron microscope
surface roughness
Journal
Contemporary clinical dentistry
ISSN: 0976-237X
Titre abrégé: Contemp Clin Dent
Pays: India
ID NLM: 101552967
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
entrez:
21
4
2020
pubmed:
21
4
2020
medline:
21
4
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Restorative resins during their prolonged use are exposed to variety foods and beverages are subjected to wear, degradation, and staining resulting in failure of restoration and require replacement. This study is aimed to evaluate surface roughness and hardness of five commercially available posterior resin composites following exposure to various food-simulating liquids (FSLs). Specimens were immersed in distilled water, ethanol, citric acid, and air and later examined using a profilometer, scanning electron microscope for the surface profiles. Hardness was measured by Vickers Hardness test. Results were subjected to two-way ANOVA and Tukey's multiple There were significant differences in results among the composite resin tested. Inter comparison between materials after treating with FSLs, clear fill majesty (CFM) and Z350 showed better hardness values under the influence of ethanol, followed by Ever X, Tetric Evo Ceram and Sure fill SDR. None of the composites were unaffected by air compared to FSLs. Citric acid had reduced the hardness of CFM and had caused surface roughness on Sure fill SDR and Tetric Evo Ceram. Distilled water reduced hardness of CFM and SureFil SDR. EverX was not affected by any of the FSL either in hardness or surface roughness properties. All composites showed surface irregularities in all media. Ethanol and water had almost similar effect on all composites. Differences in hardness and surface roughness are due to different composition of resin matrix and different filler particles in all composite resin material tested.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32308292
doi: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_535_18
pii: CCD-10-289
pmc: PMC7145263
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
289-293Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2020 Contemporary Clinical Dentistry.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
There are no conflicts of interest.
Références
Oper Dent. 1999 Nov-Dec;24(6):371-6
pubmed: 10823087
J Dent. 2005 Feb;33(2):91-8
pubmed: 15683889
Dent Mater. 1999 Jan;15(1):21-32
pubmed: 10483392
J Oral Rehabil. 1994 Jul;21(4):441-52
pubmed: 7965355
Dent Mater. 2008 Jun;24(6):732-6
pubmed: 17897707
Aust Dent J. 2012 Sep;57(3):359-64; quiz 398
pubmed: 22924362
Scand J Dent Res. 1990 Jun;98(3):261-7
pubmed: 2349453
J Dent Res. 1992 Jan;71(1):13-9
pubmed: 1531485
J Dent Res. 1984 May;63(5):675-80
pubmed: 6200522
J Oral Rehabil. 2001 Nov;28(11):1015-21
pubmed: 11722717
J Dent Res. 1982 Oct;61(10):1180-3
pubmed: 6214572
Oper Dent. 2003 Sep-Oct;28(5):628-34
pubmed: 14531611
Oper Dent. 2000 May-Jun;25(3):170-6
pubmed: 11203812
Eur J Oral Sci. 1997 Apr;105(2):97-116
pubmed: 9151062
J Dent. 1998 Nov;26(8):707-12
pubmed: 9793294
J Dent Res. 1983 Feb;62(2):126-30
pubmed: 6571865
Dent Mater. 2011 Jun;27(6):598-607
pubmed: 21477852
Scand J Dent Res. 1984 Jun;92(3):257-61
pubmed: 6235572
J Dent Res. 1985 Nov;64(11):1326-31
pubmed: 2936780