The difference of lower and upper surface hardness ratio between LED-activated hybrid composite resin and nano composite resin

Deli Mona; Mochammad Richata Fadil; Milly Armilia Andang

doi:10.24198/pjd.vol28no2.26465

The difference of lower and upper surface hardness ratio between LED-activated hybrid composite resin and nano composite resin

Deli Mona, Mochammad Richata Fadil, Milly Armilia Andang

Abstract

Introduction: Composite polymerization is a polymer molecule formation from monomeric molecules. To obtain good physical and mechanical properties of composite resin restoration, the dental composite resin must have the possibility of an optimal quantity of its monomer converted to the polymer during the polymerization reaction. The type, size, and content of the fillers in the composite are also essential factors in the polymerization process. A hardness test can be used to indirectly measure the hardness ratio of the upper and lower surfaces of the composite material (relative curing degree). The objective of this study was to analyze the differences in the hardness ratio of the upper and lower surface between LED-activated hybrid composite resin and nano composite resin. Methods: Thirty composite resin samples were randomly selected and divided into 2 groups. Group I was the hybrid composite resin group and Group II was the nano composite resin group. Samples were then formed into discs with a diameter of 6mm and a thickness of 2mm and polymerized using LCU LED with a light intensity of 800 mW/cm2 for 20 seconds. After 24 hours, the upper and lower surfaces of each sample were tested for three testing points using Vickers Hardness Tester. The data were then analyzed using the t-test. Results: The hardness ratio between the upper and lower surfaces (relative curing degree) of the hybrid composite resin and nano composite resin was 0.93 and 0.88 consecutively. Conclusion: There is any difference between the upper and lower surface hardness ratio of LED-activated hybrid composite resin and nano composite resin.

Keywords

Lower and upper surface hardness, LED-activated hybrid resin composite, nano resin composite.

Full Text:

PDF

References

de Souza FB, Guimaraes RP, Silva CH. A clinical of packable and microhybrid resin composite restorations: one-year report. Quintessence Int. 2005;36(1):41-8.

Bona ÁD, Rosa V, Cecchetti D. Influence of shade and irradiation time on the hardness of composite resins. Braz Dent J. 2007;18(3):231–4.

Lutz F, Phillips RW. A classification and evaluation of composite resin systems. J Prosthet Dent. 1983;50(4):480–8.

Hervás-García A, Martínez-Lozano MA, Cabanes-Vila J, Barjau-Escribano A, Fos-Galve P. Composite resins. A review of the materials and clinical indications. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2006;11(2):E215-20.

Mitra SB, Wu D, Holmes BN. An application of nanotechnology in advanced dental materials. J Am Dent Assoc. 2003;134(10):1382–90.

3M Dental Products Laboratory, Filtek Ultimate Universal Restorative System: Technical Product Profile; U.S.A. 2010.

Powers JM. Craig’s Restorative Dental Materials. 12th ed. St. Louis: Mosby-Elsevier; 2006. pp. 64-5, 79-82, 190-200, 201-3.

Craig RG, Powers JM, Wataha JC. Dental materials: properties and manipulation. 8th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2004. pp. 29, 66-77.

Jandt KD, Al-Jasser AM, Al-Ateeq K, Vowles RW, Allen GC. Mechanical properties and radiopacity of experimental glass-silica-metal hybrid composites. Dent Mater. 2002;18(6):429–35.

Barghi N, Berry T, Hatton C. Evaluating Intensity Output of Curing Lights in Private Dental Offices. J Am Dent Assoc. 1994;125(7):992–6.

Koupis NS, Martens LC, Verbeeck RM. Relative curing degree of polyacid-modified and conventional resin composites determined by surface Knoop hardness. Dent Mater. 2006;22(11):1045–50.

Cohen M. Statistical estimation of resin composite polymerization sufficiency using microhardness. Dent Mater. 2004;20(2):158–66.

Anusavice KJ. Phillip’s science of dental material. 12th ed. St. Louis: Saunders-Elsevier; 2003. p.400-36.

Van Noort R. Introduction to dental material. 3rd ed. St. Louis: Mosby-Elsevier; 2007.

Marghalani HY. Post-irradiation Vickers microhardness development of novel resin composites. Mater Res. 2010;13(1):81–7.

McCabe JF, Walls AWG. Applied dental materials. 9th ed. Oxford: Blackwell; 2008. pp. 13, 201-5.

Albers HF. Tooth-Colored Restorative, Principles and Technique. 9th ed. Beijing: PMPH-USA; 2002. p. 127-53.

Uctasli S, Tezvergil A, Lassila L, Vallittu P. The degree of conversion of fiber-reinforced composites polymerized using different light-curing sources. Dent Mater. 2005;21(5):469–75.

Musanje L, Darvell B. Curing-light attenuation in filled-resin restorative materials. Dent Mater. 2006;22(9):804–17.

Pires JA, Cvitko E, Denehy GE, Swift EJ Jr. Effects of curing tip distance on light intensity and composite resin microhardness. Quintessence Int. 1993;24(7): 517-21.

Peris AR, Mitsui FH, Amaral CM, Ambrosano GM, Pimenta LA. The effect of composite type on microhardness when using QTH or LED. Oper Dent. 2005;30(5):649-54.

Lie N, Felten K, Trixner K, Hickel R, Kunzelman KH. Shrinkage behaviour of resin-based composite irradiated with modern curing units. Dent Mater. 2005;21:483-9.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.24198/pjd.vol28no2.26465