{"title":"Surface Micro-Hardness and Wear Resistance of a Self-Adhesive Flowable Composite in Comparison to Conventional Flowable Composites.","authors":"Fateme Azizi, Fariba Ezoji, Soraya Khafri, Behnaz Esmaeili","doi":"10.18502/fid.v20i10.12609","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objectives:</b> The durability of composite restorations is directly affected by the mechanical properties of the composite. The aim of this study was to evaluate the hardness and wear resistance of self-adhesive flowable composite (SAF) in comparison with conventional flowable composites. <b>Materials and Methods:</b> In this in vitro study, 50 composite specimens were prepared in brass molds with 10mm ×10mm ×2mm and divided into five groups (n=10). Specimens included three conventional flowable composites (Grandio flow, Filtek flow and Admira fusion flow), one self-adhering flowable composite (SAF, Vertise flow) and a microhybrid composite (filtek z250). After polishing, the micro-hardness of the specimens was measured in a Vickers hardness device, and the specimens were then subjected to 5000, 10000, 20000, 40000, 80000 and 120000 wear cycles in a wear tester. One-way ANOVA/Games-Howell, Kruskal Wallis, and Friedman tests were used for statistical analysis. The significance level was set at P<0.05. <b>Results:</b> The surface micro-hardness of the SAF was significantly lower than that of the microhybrid composite (P=0.01). There was no significant difference between the surface hardness of the different tested flowable composites (P>0.05). Also, the wear resistance of the studied composites was not significantly different in various cycles (P>0.05). <b>Conclusion:</b> Based on our results, SAF would not be an ideal substitute for conventional flowable composites in high-stress areas.</p>","PeriodicalId":12445,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Dentistry","volume":"20 ","pages":"10"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/9e/e6/FID-20-10.PMC10258403.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18502/fid.v20i10.12609","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: The durability of composite restorations is directly affected by the mechanical properties of the composite. The aim of this study was to evaluate the hardness and wear resistance of self-adhesive flowable composite (SAF) in comparison with conventional flowable composites. Materials and Methods: In this in vitro study, 50 composite specimens were prepared in brass molds with 10mm ×10mm ×2mm and divided into five groups (n=10). Specimens included three conventional flowable composites (Grandio flow, Filtek flow and Admira fusion flow), one self-adhering flowable composite (SAF, Vertise flow) and a microhybrid composite (filtek z250). After polishing, the micro-hardness of the specimens was measured in a Vickers hardness device, and the specimens were then subjected to 5000, 10000, 20000, 40000, 80000 and 120000 wear cycles in a wear tester. One-way ANOVA/Games-Howell, Kruskal Wallis, and Friedman tests were used for statistical analysis. The significance level was set at P<0.05. Results: The surface micro-hardness of the SAF was significantly lower than that of the microhybrid composite (P=0.01). There was no significant difference between the surface hardness of the different tested flowable composites (P>0.05). Also, the wear resistance of the studied composites was not significantly different in various cycles (P>0.05). Conclusion: Based on our results, SAF would not be an ideal substitute for conventional flowable composites in high-stress areas.