| Literature DB >> 28611843 |
Rafael Santos Rocha1, Amanda Carvalho Oliveira1, Taciana Marco Ferraz Caneppele1, Eduardo Bresciani1.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of aging protocols on surface gloss of composites. Cylindrical resin composite specimens (6 mm in diameter, 1 mm thick) were fabricated and divided into three groups (N = 60): microfilled (MiFi), nanohybrid (NaHy), and nanofilled (NaFi). Specimens were distributed into four aging subgroups: thermocycling (5° to 55°C, 15,000 cycles); ethanol immersion (15 days); brushing (10,750 cycles); and light aging (216 h). Surface gloss readings (Novo-Curve, Rhopoint TM, England) were performed at baseline (R0) and after every one-third of aging protocols (R1 to R3). Data were submitted to one-way repeated measures ANOVA and Tukey's test (5%). Overall, surface gloss alterations were detected over time (p < 0.001). Thermocycling reduced surface gloss, except for NaHy. Ethanol immersion resulted in surface gloss reduction after R1 for MiFi and NaFi, while reduction after R1 and R2 was detected for NaHy. For brushing, gloss reduction was detected after R1 and R3 for all composites. For light aging, gloss was reduced after R1 and R2 for MiFi and NaFi, while a reduction only after R1 was detected for NaHy. The studied aging protocols affect surface gloss differently, being material and aging therapy dependent. In general, the surface gloss is reduced with aging.Entities:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28611843 PMCID: PMC5458377 DOI: 10.1155/2017/3483171
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Dent ISSN: 1687-8728
Resin composites used in this study.
| Resin composite | Manufacture | Color | Classification | Filler (wt.%) | Matrix |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Microfiller-Durafill VS | HeraeusKulzer, Wehrheim, Germany | A2E | Microfiller | 50.5 | Bis-GMA, UDMA, TEGDMA |
| IPS Empress Direct | Ivoclar Vivadent, Amherst, NY, USA | A2E | Nanohybrid | 78.1 | UDMA, TCDMMA, Bis-GMA |
| Filtek Z350XT | 3M-ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA | A2E | Nanofiller | 72.5 | Bis-GMA, UDMA, -TEGDMA, Bis-EMA |
Figure 1Schematic diagram of experimental design of this study.
Figure 2Comparison of surface gloss in relation to (a) thermal aging, (b) chemical aging, (c) mechanical aging, and (d) light aging. Different letters indicate statistical differences within each type of resin composite; p < 0.05.
Percentage of surface gloss reduction after each reading (R1 to R3) in relation to R0.
| Aging | Resin composite | R1 | R2 | R3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thermal | MiFI | 13.83% | 14.79% | 17.50% |
| NaHy | 0.06% | 3.37% | 3.51% | |
| NaFi | 0.23% | 5.28% | 8.79% | |
|
| ||||
| Chemical | MiFI | 43.61% | 44.40% | 41.77% |
| NaHy | 20.44% | 32.73% | 29.97% | |
| NaFi | 12.17% | 9.67% | 8.59% | |
|
| ||||
| Mechanical | MiFI | 15.73% | 20.55% | 30.34% |
| NaHy | 10.04% | 12.29% | 13.34% | |
| NaFi | 4.78% | 6.37% | 12.45% | |
|
| ||||
| Light | MiFI | 4.97% | 28.04% | 44.39% |
| NaHy | 5.25% | 2.21% | 9.95% | |
| NaFi | 3.75% | 27.97% | 35.46% | |