2023PubMedRequires access

Microhardness of different thicknesses of bulk fill composites.

Ashton E Reno, Hoda Saleh Ismail, Brian R Morrow, Anne E. Hill, Franklin Garcı́a-Godoy

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the microhardness values and bottom/top hardness ratios of different composites after being cured in 2 or 4 mm increments. METHODS: Two bulk fill composites, methacrylate-based and ormocer-based, and one conventional composite were tested. 36 cylindrical discs were prepared (n=12/composite, with six for 2 mm, and six for 4 mm thickness) by pressing each composite into a mold between two glass slides covered by Mylar strips. The top and bottom surfaces of each sample were evaluated using a Buehler hardness tester for Knoop microhardness, with a 50 g static load applied for 10 seconds at three different locations of the central part of each sample. The bottom/top hardness ratio was calculated for each sample. The Knoop microhardness data and bottom/top ratio percentages were analyzed using two-way repeated measures ANOVA and Holm-Sidak post hoc test, with significance at P< 0.05. RESULTS: The tested methacrylate-based bulk fill had the highest overall microhardness among the three tested composites. All three composite types showed a significant difference in microhardness between the top and bottom of the 4 mm discs. The bottom/top ratio percentages differed significantly for both tested bulk fill composites across different thicknesses. Both tested bulk fill materials had a bottom/top ratio of ≥ 80% at the deepest level of a 4 mm increment. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The type of material significantly affected both the bottom and top microhardness values under the experimental conditions used. While both tested bulk fill composites showed a decline in microhardness at the bottom of the 4 mm depth, they had clinically acceptable microhardness ratios at greater depths.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

PURPOSE: To compare the microhardness values and bottom/top hardness ratios of different composites after being cured in 2 or 4 mm increments. METHODS: Two bulk fill composites, methacrylate-based and ormocer-based, and one conventional composite were tested. 36 cylindrical discs were prepared (n=12/composite, with six for 2 mm, and six for 4 mm thickness) by pressing each composite into a mold between two glass slides covered by Mylar strips. The top and bottom surfaces of each sample were evaluated using a Buehler hardness tester for Knoop microhardness, with a 50 g static load applied for 10 seconds at three different locations of the central part of each sample. The bottom/top hardness ratio was calculated for each sample. The Knoop microhardness data and bottom/top ratio percentages were analyzed using two-way repeated measures ANOVA and Holm-Sidak post hoc test, with significance at P< 0.05. RESULTS: The tested methacrylate-based bulk fill had the highest overall microhardness among the three tested composites. All three composite types showed a significant difference in microhardness between the top and bottom of the 4 mm discs. The bottom/top ratio percentages differed significantly for both tested bulk fill composites across different thicknesses. Both tested bulk fill materials had a bottom/top ratio of ≥ 80% at the deepest level of a 4 mm increment. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The type of material significantly affected both the bottom and top microhardness values under the experimental conditions used. While both tested bulk fill composites showed a decline in microhardness at the bottom of the 4 mm depth, they had clinically acceptable microhardness ratios at greater depths.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

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

PURPOSE: To compare the microhardness values and bottom/top hardness ratios of different composites after being cured in 2 or 4 mm increments. METHODS: Two bulk fill composites, methacrylate-based and ormocer-based, and one conventional composite were tested. 36 cylindrical discs were prepared (n=12/composite, with six for 2 mm, and six for 4 mm thickness) by pressing each composite into a mold between two glass slides covered by Mylar strips. The top and bottom surfaces of each sample were evaluated using a Buehler hardness tester for Knoop microhardness, with a 50 g static load applied for 10 seconds at three different locations of the central part of each sample. The bottom/top hardness ratio was calculated for each sample. The Knoop microhardness data and bottom/top ratio percentages were analyzed using two-way repeated measures ANOVA and Holm-Sidak post hoc test, with significance at P< 0.05. RESULTS: The tested methacrylate-based bulk fill had the highest overall microhardness among the three tested composites. All three composite types showed a significant difference in microhardness between the top and bottom of the 4 mm discs. The bottom/top ratio percentages differed significantly for both tested bulk fill composites across different thicknesses. Both tested bulk fill materials had a bottom/top ratio of ≥ 80% at the deepest level of a 4 mm increment. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The type of material significantly affected both the bottom and top microhardness values under the experimental conditions used. While both tested bulk fill composites showed a decline in microhardness at the bottom of the 4 mm depth, they had clinically acceptable microhardness ratios at greater depths.

Key concepts: Knoop hardness test, Indentation hardness, Materials science, Composite material, Composite number, Indentation, Microstructure

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Microhardness of different thicknesses of bulk fill composites. — Research Paper | ScholarLens