| 0574 Surface microhardness of different resin composites | ||
|
B.Á.C.D. BARROS1, G.C. LOPES2, L.N. BARATIERI2, and E. ARAUJO2, 1Universidade Federal De Santa Catarina, Florianópolis-Santa Catarina, Brazil, 2Universidade Federal De Santa Catarina, Florianópolis - Santa Catarina, Brazil Objective: This in vitro study compared the microhardness of four composites. Methods: Ten cylinder specimens of 5 mm diameter and 3 mm deep were made with four composite: two microfilled (DU.Durafill, Heraeus Kulzer; and HE.Heliomolar, Vivadent), micro-hibrid (Z2.Filtek Z250, 3M ESPE) and nanofilled (SU.Filtek Supreme, 3M ESPE).The specimens were light-cured for 40 seconds, included in acrylic resin, ground until 1200-grid and stored in water at 37º for 72 h. Six indentations (Knoop) were made on each of the 10 surfaces of each group, under load of 25g for 15s. The data was analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Scheffé Post Hoc (p<0.05). Results: Knoop microhardness number (Mean±SD) were: Z2=100.3(±8.7)a; SU=89.7(±8.7)b; HE=51.4(±4.0)c; DU=38.6(±9.0)d. Means with different letter are statistically different at p<0.05. Filtek Z250 showed the highest microhardness value, followed by Filtek Supreme. The nanofilled composite Supreme showed to have higher microhardness than the microfilled composites tested. Conclusion: The surface composite microhardness may depend on its filler characteristics | ||
| Seq #78 - Composition, Physical Properties, and Fatigue 10:15 AM-11:30 AM, Thursday, 11 March 2004 Hawaii Convention Center Exhibit Hall 1-2 | ||
|
Back to the Dental Materials: VI - Polymer Materials-Mechanical Properties and Degradation Program
| ||