Abrasive resistance and microhardness of self-adhesive (Surefil one) and conventional bulk fill composites: An- in vitro study.
Aims and objectives To evaluate abrasive resistance and microhardness of self-adhesive Surefil one and conventional bulkfill composites Beautifil bulk restorative and Filtek one bulk fill restorative. Materials and Methods: For the abrasive resistance test, thirty composite discs (4 mm hieght×8 m...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
College Of Dentistry Hawler Medical University
2023-12-01
|
| Series: | Erbil Dental Journal |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://edj.hmu.edu.krd/index.php/journal/article/view/237 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1823859752600338432 |
|---|---|
| author | Maryam Fakher Ibrahim Bahar Jafaar Selivany Abduloma Baraka Ali |
| author_facet | Maryam Fakher Ibrahim Bahar Jafaar Selivany Abduloma Baraka Ali |
| author_sort | Maryam Fakher Ibrahim |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description |
Aims and objectives To evaluate abrasive resistance and microhardness of self-adhesive Surefil
one and conventional bulkfill composites Beautifil bulk restorative and Filtek one bulk fill restorative.
Materials and Methods: For the abrasive resistance test, thirty composite discs (4 mm hieght×8
mm width) in each group (n=10) were fabricated. GI: Beautifil bulk restorative, GII: Filtek One
Bulk fill restorative and GIII: Surefil one self-adhesive. By placing the material in a mold in a single increment then curing. A custom-made toothbrush simulator was employed for wear
testing. The samples weighted before and after the brushing to measure the weight loss. For
the microhardness test, thirty cylindrical specimens (6 mm× 8 mm) (n= 10) were fabricated to
assess the microhardness, top and bottom surfaces were tested using Vicker Hardness test. The
results were analyized with a one-way ANOVA test, the post-hoc comparisons were examined in
Tukey test.
Results: Abrasive Resistance results, Surefil one (9.52gr) and Beautifil bulk (4.16gr) showed an
increase in weight after brushing, while Filtek one bulkfill (-0.85gr) showed a decrease in
weight.Microhardness test results, Beautifil bulk showed the highest number of VH (74.83) followed by Surefil one (70.61) and Filtek one bulkfill (62.95).
Conclusion: Beautifil bulk was more resistant to abrasion in comparison to Surefil one self-adhesive and One bulk fill. The great weight loss was observed in One bulk fill. Great weight
gain was observed in Surefil one self-adhesive. Beautifil bulk showed the highest VH number
compare to Surefil one self-adhesive and One bulk fill. Filtek one bulk fill showed low resistance
and low hardness number.
|
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-41690f233e0c40939b45874164321e4c |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2523-6172 2616-4795 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2023-12-01 |
| publisher | College Of Dentistry Hawler Medical University |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Erbil Dental Journal |
| spelling | doaj-art-41690f233e0c40939b45874164321e4c2025-02-10T20:48:07ZengCollege Of Dentistry Hawler Medical UniversityErbil Dental Journal2523-61722616-47952023-12-0162Abrasive resistance and microhardness of self-adhesive (Surefil one) and conventional bulk fill composites: An- in vitro study.Maryam Fakher Ibrahim0Bahar Jafaar Selivany1Abduloma Baraka Ali2College of Dentistry, University of Duhok, Duhok, Iraq.College of Dentistry, University of Duhok, Duhok, Iraq.Al Mustfa University College/ Department of Dentistry. Aims and objectives To evaluate abrasive resistance and microhardness of self-adhesive Surefil one and conventional bulkfill composites Beautifil bulk restorative and Filtek one bulk fill restorative. Materials and Methods: For the abrasive resistance test, thirty composite discs (4 mm hieght×8 mm width) in each group (n=10) were fabricated. GI: Beautifil bulk restorative, GII: Filtek One Bulk fill restorative and GIII: Surefil one self-adhesive. By placing the material in a mold in a single increment then curing. A custom-made toothbrush simulator was employed for wear testing. The samples weighted before and after the brushing to measure the weight loss. For the microhardness test, thirty cylindrical specimens (6 mm× 8 mm) (n= 10) were fabricated to assess the microhardness, top and bottom surfaces were tested using Vicker Hardness test. The results were analyized with a one-way ANOVA test, the post-hoc comparisons were examined in Tukey test. Results: Abrasive Resistance results, Surefil one (9.52gr) and Beautifil bulk (4.16gr) showed an increase in weight after brushing, while Filtek one bulkfill (-0.85gr) showed a decrease in weight.Microhardness test results, Beautifil bulk showed the highest number of VH (74.83) followed by Surefil one (70.61) and Filtek one bulkfill (62.95). Conclusion: Beautifil bulk was more resistant to abrasion in comparison to Surefil one self-adhesive and One bulk fill. The great weight loss was observed in One bulk fill. Great weight gain was observed in Surefil one self-adhesive. Beautifil bulk showed the highest VH number compare to Surefil one self-adhesive and One bulk fill. Filtek one bulk fill showed low resistance and low hardness number. https://edj.hmu.edu.krd/index.php/journal/article/view/237Bulk fillSelf-adhesiveAbrasive resistanceMicrohardness CompositeSurefil one |
| spellingShingle | Maryam Fakher Ibrahim Bahar Jafaar Selivany Abduloma Baraka Ali Abrasive resistance and microhardness of self-adhesive (Surefil one) and conventional bulk fill composites: An- in vitro study. Erbil Dental Journal Bulk fill Self-adhesive Abrasive resistance Microhardness Composite Surefil one |
| title | Abrasive resistance and microhardness of self-adhesive (Surefil one) and conventional bulk fill composites: An- in vitro study. |
| title_full | Abrasive resistance and microhardness of self-adhesive (Surefil one) and conventional bulk fill composites: An- in vitro study. |
| title_fullStr | Abrasive resistance and microhardness of self-adhesive (Surefil one) and conventional bulk fill composites: An- in vitro study. |
| title_full_unstemmed | Abrasive resistance and microhardness of self-adhesive (Surefil one) and conventional bulk fill composites: An- in vitro study. |
| title_short | Abrasive resistance and microhardness of self-adhesive (Surefil one) and conventional bulk fill composites: An- in vitro study. |
| title_sort | abrasive resistance and microhardness of self adhesive surefil one and conventional bulk fill composites an in vitro study |
| topic | Bulk fill Self-adhesive Abrasive resistance Microhardness Composite Surefil one |
| url | https://edj.hmu.edu.krd/index.php/journal/article/view/237 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT maryamfakheribrahim abrasiveresistanceandmicrohardnessofselfadhesivesurefiloneandconventionalbulkfillcompositesaninvitrostudy AT baharjafaarselivany abrasiveresistanceandmicrohardnessofselfadhesivesurefiloneandconventionalbulkfillcompositesaninvitrostudy AT abdulomabarakaali abrasiveresistanceandmicrohardnessofselfadhesivesurefiloneandconventionalbulkfillcompositesaninvitrostudy |