Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Dept. of Restorative Dentistry, Dental Branch, Islamic Azad University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

2 Dental Branch, Islamic Azad University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

3 Dental Research Center, Dentistry Research Institute, Dept. of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

10.30476/dentjods.2021.87669.1278

Abstract

Statement of the Problem: One of the problems with light-cured composite resins is the limitation and inadequate depth of curing and polymerization, resulting in low surface microhardness and restoration failure.
Purpose: The present study aimed to compare the surface microhardness of two different bulk-fill composite resins and one conventional composite resin using the Vickers microhardness test.
Materials and Method: In the present in vitro study, 108 samples from two different bulk-fill composite resins (Tetric N Ceram and Xtrafil) and one conventional composite resin (Filtek Z250) were prepared in metallic molds (2×4×10 mm) (n=36 for each composite resin). Six samples from each composite resin (n=6) underwent a hardness measurement test at specific depths (0.1, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 mm). The samples were then stored at 37ºC for 24 hours, followed by a microhardness test at the depths mentioned above.
Results: In all the composite resin samples, microhardness decreased with an increase in depth. The highest microhardness was recorded in Filtek Z250, followed by Xtrafil, with no significant difference. The lowest microhardness was recorded in Tetric N Ceram. Both bulk-fill composite resins at all the depths exhibited depth-to-surface standard microhardness (>80%).
Conclusion: According to the results, both bulk-fill composite resins evaluated exhibited favorable surface microhardness up to a depth of 5 mm.

Keywords