2015•Acta Biomaterialia Odontologica ScandinavicaOpen access

Microhardness evaluation of silorane and methacrylate composites submitted to erosion and abrasion processes

E.A. Gazola, Marcos Augusto do Rego, William Cunha Brandt, Maria Beatriz Freitas D’Arce, Priscila Christiane Suzy Liporoni

Open full text 1 citations

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the Knoop hardness number (KHN) of methacrylate (MC) and silorane (SC) composites after being submitted to erosion and abrasion processes.Material and methods: Forty samples were made with each composite: MC and SC. The samples were divided into eight groups (n = 10) according to the type of composite (G1–G4, MC; G5–G8, SC) and the beverages involved in the erosion process (G1 and G5 – Control (C), without erosion, with abrasion; G2 and G6 – Orange Juice (OJ), abrasion; G3 and G7 – Smirnoff Ice® (SI), abrasion; G4 and G8 – Gatorade® (GA), abrasion). The KHN test was performed 24 h after the last cycle of erosion/abrasion.Results: The MC groups showed smaller KHN values for the SI group (p < 0.05) when compared to the Control and OJ groups; however, for the SC groups, no differences were found (p > 0.05).Conclusion: Methacrylate composite when submitted to acidic beverages erosive challenge combined with abrasive process might alter its surface microhardness. However, the beverages used in the present study were not able to interfere in silorane composite surface microhardness.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the Knoop hardness number (KHN) of methacrylate (MC) and silorane (SC) composites after being submitted to erosion and abrasion processes.Material and methods: Forty samples were made with each composite: MC and SC. The samples were divided into eight groups (n = 10) according to the type of composite (G1–G4, MC; G5–G8, SC) and the beverages involved in the erosion process (G1 and G5 – Control (C), without erosion, with abrasion; G2 and G6 – Orange Juice (OJ), abrasion; G3 and G7 – Smirnoff Ice® (SI), abrasion; G4 and G8 – Gatorade® (GA), abrasion). The KHN test was performed 24 h after the last cycle of erosion/abrasion.Results: The MC groups showed smaller KHN values for the SI group (p < 0.05) when compared to the Control and OJ groups; however, for the SC groups, no differences were found (p > 0.05).Conclusion: Methacrylate composite when submitted to acidic beverages erosive challenge combined with abrasive process might alter its surface microhardness. However, the beverages used in the present study were not able to interfere in silorane composite surface microhardness.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 1 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the Knoop hardness number (KHN) of methacrylate (MC) and silorane (SC) composites after being submitted to erosion and abrasion processes.Material and methods: Forty samples were made with each composite: MC and SC. The samples were divided into eight groups (n = 10) according to the type of composite (G1–G4, MC; G5–G8, SC) and the beverages involved in the erosion process (G1 and G5 – Control (C), without erosion, with abrasion; G2 and G6 – Orange Juice (OJ), abrasion; G3 and G7 – Smirnoff Ice® (SI), abrasion; G4 and G8 – Gatorade® (GA), abrasion). The KHN test was performed 24 h after the last cycle of erosion/abrasion.Results: The MC groups showed smaller KHN values for the SI group (p < 0.05) when compared to the Control and OJ groups; however, for the SC groups, no differences were found (p > 0.05).Conclusion: Methacrylate composite when submitted to acidic beverages erosive challenge combined with abrasive process might alter its surface microhardness. However, the beverages used in the present study were not able to interfere in silorane composite surface microhardness.

Key concepts: Knoop hardness test, Abrasion (mechanical), Indentation hardness, Abrasive, Materials science, Methacrylate, Composite number, Composite material

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Microhardness evaluation of silorane and methacrylate composites submitted to erosion and abrasion processes — Research Paper | ScholarLens