AIM: The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of the surface roughness on the surface microhardness of experimental composites with varying filler concentration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Experimental resin composites were formulated by mixing Bis-GMA and TEGDMA in a 50/50% weight ratio and CQ/EDAB were added to make the material photosensitive. Silanized glass particles were incorporated in the resin blend in two concentrations: C50 with 50% and C75 with 75% in weight ratio. The surface roughness and the surface microhardness measurements were determined after every three finishing procedures with #280-, #600- and #1200-grit wet sandpapers, respectively. The data were analyzed statistically by Two Way ANOVA and Tukey's test, and comparisons were conducted using the Spearman's correlation test (p > 0.05). RESULTS: The surface roughness and surface microhardness were negatively associated (r = - 0.68) and the finishing procedures of both composites resulted in harder and smoother surfaces than the initial ones. Additionally, in a smooth circumstance, the higher content of fillers has not resulted in a composite with better microhardness and smoothness. CONCLUSION: Finishing procedures decreased the surface roughness and consequently improved the surface microhardness of the composites evaluated. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Finishing and polishing procedures are effectives in reducing the surface roughness amplitude of composite materials and in improving their surface microhardness. Thus a microhardness test and any hardness evaluation must be conducted only after a properly finished and polished surface is achieved.
AIM: The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of the surface roughness on the surface microhardness of experimental composites with varying filler concentration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Experimental resin composites were formulated by mixing Bis-GMA and TEGDMA in a 50/50% weight ratio and CQ/EDAB were added to make the material photosensitive. Silanized glass particles were incorporated in the resin blend in two concentrations: C50 with 50% and C75 with 75% in weight ratio. The surface roughness and the surface microhardness measurements were determined after every three finishing procedures with #280-, #600- and #1200-grit wet sandpapers, respectively. The data were analyzed statistically by Two Way ANOVA and Tukey's test, and comparisons were conducted using the Spearman's correlation test (p > 0.05). RESULTS: The surface roughness and surface microhardness were negatively associated (r = - 0.68) and the finishing procedures of both composites resulted in harder and smoother surfaces than the initial ones. Additionally, in a smooth circumstance, the higher content of fillers has not resulted in a composite with better microhardness and smoothness. CONCLUSION: Finishing procedures decreased the surface roughness and consequently improved the surface microhardness of the composites evaluated. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Finishing and polishing procedures are effectives in reducing the surface roughness amplitude of composite materials and in improving their surface microhardness. Thus a microhardness test and any hardness evaluation must be conducted only after a properly finished and polished surface is achieved.