Microhardness Assessment of Two Nanohybrid Composite Resins with Two Curing Technologies

Abstract

AIM:This study evaluated the influence of two light sources on the microhardness of two recent composite resins. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 120 specimens were prepared and divided into two groups according to the composite resin restoration used (Tetric EvoCeram Bulk fill) and (Universal Nanohybrid Mosaic). Each group was subdivided into four subgroups according to the curing sources used with different curing duration’s laser curing system (SIROLaser) for 10, 15, and 20 s and conventional blue light system (LED) for 20 s. A microhardness testing machine was used to assess the microhardness of Tetric EvoCeram Bulk fill and Universal Nanohybrid Mosaic. Two-way ANOVA statistical test was used for comparing resin composite and curing energy effect on different variable studied. One-way ANOVA followed by pair-wise Tukey’s post hoc tests was performed to detect significance between each composite subgroups and t-test for subgroups. P ≤ 0.05 is considered statistically significant in all tests. RESULTS: LED cured Tetric EvoCeram Bulk fill composite resin recorded higher bottom to top ratio (B/T ratio) than laser cured one and the difference in B/T ratio between both energies was statistically non-significant. LED cured Mosaic composite resin recorded higher B/T ratio than laser cured one . The difference in bottom to top ratio between both curing devices was statistically significant. CONCLUSION: SIROLaser Blue laser device increases the degree of polymerization and achieves better curing of composite resins than LED. RECOMMENDATION: Different types of curing systems are present in the dental practice. The use of SIROLaser Blue laser to photopolymerize composite resin will offers proper polymerization properties.