Abstract
This study evaluated the surface microhardness of composite, affected by surface coating with different dental adhesive systems. A total of 100 composite discs were divided into five groups. Group 1 was uncoated (control group C), and groups 2 to 5 were coated with different adhesive systems (OptiBond FL: FL, OptiBond SOLO Plus: SOLO, OptiBond XTR: XTR, and OptiBond All in one: AIO, respectively). The Vickers microhardness (VHN) was measured without and with 500 thermocycles. The data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey's posthoc test at the 95% confidence level. At 24 hours, the VHN of C (59.96 ± 3.68) and FL (59.83 ± 4.54) were significantly higher than SOLO (51.73 ± 4.63) and AIO (51.45 ± 4.11). The VHN of XTR (54.96 ± 3.68) was not significant compared with that of C and all other groups. After thermocycling, VHN were significantly decreased in all groups. However, there were no significant differences among all groups. At 24 hours, composite coated with different adhesive systems have different effects to VHN. Thermocycling all adhesive resin systems coated on composite surface significantly decreased the VHN.
Highlights
Dental composite was widely used in restorative dentistry and gained increasing popularity due to its pleasing aesthetic, minimal invasive of cavity preparation, remarkable mechanical properties’ improvement, and decline in amalgam use, which was a cause for concern on account of mercury toxicity.[1]
The mean Vickers microhardness (VHN) values and standard deviations (SD) for the composites were shown in ►Table 2
Two-way ANOVA revealed that factors including dental adhesive system, thermocycling procedure and their interactions had statistically significant on VHN (p < 0.01)
Summary
Dental composite was widely used in restorative dentistry and gained increasing popularity due to its pleasing aesthetic, minimal invasive of cavity preparation, remarkable mechanical properties’ improvement, and decline in amalgam use, which was a cause for concern on account of mercury toxicity.[1] one of the drawbacks of dental composite was stickiness of material, due to the presence of viscous monomers.[1] Composite sticked to the instrument during insertion and condensation, causing difficulties in clinical handling and shaping to the anatomy of natural tooth.[1,2,3]. The stickiness of composite increased the risk of poor adaptation, void and porosity formation.[4] To solve this problem, some clinicians used the dental adhesive to lubricate composite instrument or dental brush while shaping the smooth surface of composite.[5]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
