Dental and Medical Problems

Dent Med Probl
Index Copernicus (ICV 2020) – 128.41
MEiN – 70 pts
CiteScore (2021) – 2.0
JCI – 0.5
Average rejection rate (2021) – 81.35%
ISSN 1644-387X (print)
ISSN 2300-9020 (online)
Periodicity – quarterly

Download original text (EN)

Dental and Medical Problems

2020, vol. 57, nr 3, July-September, p. 247–253

doi: 10.17219/dmp/118123

Publication type: original article

Language: English

Download citation:

  • BIBTEX (JabRef, Mendeley)
  • RIS (Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero)

Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 Open Access

Surface microhardness of a self-adhesive composite in comparison with conventional composite resins

Mikrotwardość powierzchni samoadhezyjnego materiału kompozytowego w porównaniu z klasycznymi żywicami kompozytowymi

Sedighe Sadat Hashemikamangar1,A,E,F, Mohammad Zeynaddini Meymand2,B,D, Mohammad Javad Kharazifard3,C, Sara Valizadeh1,A,E,F

1 Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Iran

2 Department of Periodontology, Dental School, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Iran

3 Dental Research Center, Dentistry Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Iran


Background. The surface microhardness of dental composites greatly affects the durability of restorations.
Objectives. The aim of this study was to compare the surface microhardness of a self-adhesive composite with that of other conventional composites. The effect aging has on surface microhardness was also evaluated.
Material and Methods. In this in vitro experimental study, the composite resins were poured into molds measuring 3 mm × 3 mm × 6 mm and cured for 40 s. The samples were then immersed in distilled water at 37°C for 24 h. After polishing, the surface microhardness of the samples was measured using the Vickers hardness tester. For this purpose, a 100-gram load was applied to 3 points on the surface of each composite sample for 20 s, and the mean value of surface microhardness was used as the Vickers hardness number. The samples were then subjected to 30,000 thermal cycles at 5–55°C in order to age them; after that, their surface microhardness was measured again. The one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for the statistical analysis.
Results. The maximum hardness value before and after aging belonged to Filtek® Z250, followed by Premise™ Flow and Vertise™ Flow, with significant differences between them (p < 0.001). After aging, the surface microhardness of all composites decreased significantly (p < 0.001). The effect of aging on surface microhardness was the same in all groups (p > 0.05).
Conclusion. The surface microhardness of composites was significantly different before and after aging. All composites experienced a reduction in their surface microhardness after aging.

Key words

aging, self-adhesive composite, surface microhardness

Słowa kluczowe

starzenie się, samoadhezyjny materiał kompozytowy, mikrotwardość powierzchni

References (35)

  1. Negahdari K, Tavanagar MS, Bagheri R. Sorption, solubility, and surface microharness of 3 nanohybrid resin composites after 60 days of water storage. J Dent (Tehran). 2018;30(4):200–207.
  2. Tekçe N, Pala K, Demirci M, Tuncer S. Changes in surface characte­ristics of two different resin composites after 1 year water storage: An SEM and AFM study. Scanning. 2016;38(6):694–700.
  3. Baur V, Ilie N. Repair of dental resin-based composites. Clin Oral Investig. 2013;17(2):601–608.
  4. Czasch P, Ilie N. In vitro comparison of mechanical properties and degree of cure of a self-adhesive and four novel flowable compo­sites. J Adhes Dent. 2013;15(3):229–236.
  5. Ghavam M, Soleimanpour M, Hashemikamangar SS, Ebrahimi H, Kharazifard MJ. Microshear bond strength of self-adhesive composite to ceramic after mechanical, chemical and laser surface treatments. Laser Ther. 2017;26(4):297–304.
  6. Liebermann A, Wimmer T, Schmidlin PR, et al. Physicomechanical characterization of polyetheretherketone and current esthetic dental CAD/CAM polymers after aging in different storage media. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;115(3):321–328.e2.
  7. Badra VV, Faraoni JJ, Ramos RP, Palma-Dibb RG. Influence of different beverages on the microhardness and surface roughness of resin composites. Oper Dent. 2005;30(2):213–219.
  8. Moon JD, Seon EM, Son SA, Jung KH, Kwon YH, Park JK. Effect of immersion into solutions at various pH on the color stabi­lity of composite resins with different shades. Restor Dent Endod. 2015;40(4):270–276.
  9. Chladek G, Basa K, Żmudzki J, Malara P, Nowak AJ, Kasperski J. Influence of aging solutions on wear resistance and hardness of selected resin-based dental composites. Acta Bioeng Biomech. 2016;18(3):43–52.
  10. Bala O, Arisu HD, Yikilgan I, Arslan S, Gullu A. Evaluation of surface roughness and hardness of different glass ionomer cements. Eur J Dent. 2012;6(1):79–86.
  11. Heintze SD, Ilie N, Hickel R, Reis A, Loguercio A, Rousson V. Laboratory mechanical parameters of composite resins and their relation to fractures and wear in clinical trials – a systematic review. Dent Mater. 2017;33(3):e101–e114.
  12. Pahlevan A, Tabatabaei MH, Arami S, Valizadeh S. Effect of LED and argon laser on degree of conversion and temperature rise of hybrid and low shrinkage composite resins. Open Dent. 2016;10:538–545.
  13. Scougall-Vilchis RJ, Hotta Y, Hotta M, Idono T, Yamamoto K. Exami­nation of composite resins with electron microscopy, microhardness tester and energy dispersive X-ray microanalyzer. Dent Mater J. 2009;28(1):102–112.
  14. Braem M, Finger W, Van Doren VE, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Mechanical properties and filler fraction of dental composites. Dent Mater. 1989;5(5):346–348.
  15. Sakaguchi RL, Ferracane J, Powers J. Craig’s Restorative Dental Materials. 14th ed. eBook. St Louis, MO: Mosby (Elsevier Health Sciences); 2018:6.
  16. Blackham JT, Vandewalle KS, Lien W. Properties of hybrid resin composite systems containing prepolymerized filler particles. Oper Dent. 2009;34(6):697–702.
  17. Tiba A, Charlton DG, Vandewalle KS, Ragain JC Jr. Comparison of two video-imaging instruments for measuring volumetric shrinkage of dental resin composites. J Dent. 2005;33(9):757–763.
  18. Kundie F, Azhari CH, Muchtar A, Ahmad ZA. Effects of filler size on the mechanical properties of polymer-filled dental composites: A review of recent developments. J Phys Sci. 2018;29(1):141–165.
  19. Anfe TE, Caneppele TM, Agra CM, Vieira GF. Microhardness assessment of different commercial brands of resin composites with different degrees of translucence. Braz Oral Res. 2008;22(4):358–363.
  20. Kwon YH, Jeon GH, Jang CM, Seol HJ, Kim HI. Evaluation of polyme­rization of light‐curing hybrid composite resins. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2006;76(1):106–113.
  21. Gajewski VES, Pfeifer CS, Fróes-Salgado NRG, Boaro LCC, Braga RR. Monomers used in resin composites: Degree of conversion, mechanical properties and water sorption/solubility. Braz Dent J. 2012;23(5):508–514.
  22. David JR, Gomes OM, Gomes JC, Loguercio AD, Reis A. Effect of exposure time on curing efficiency of polymerizing units equipped with light-emitting diodes. J Oral Sci. 2007;49(1):19–24.
  23. Hashemikamangar SS, Hasanitabatabaee M, Kalantari S, Gholampourdehaky M, Ranjbaromrani L, Ebrahimi H. Bond strength of fiber posts to composite core: Effect of surface treatment with Er,Cr:YSGG laser and thermocycling. J Lasers Med Sci. 2018;9(1):36–42.
  24. De Moraes RR, Marimon JLM, Schneider LF, Sinhoreti MAC, Correr‐Sobrinho L, Bueno M. Effects of 6 months of aging in water on hardness and surface roughness of two microhybrid dental composites. J Prostodont. 2008;17(4):323–326.
  25. Yap AUJ, Wang X, Wu X, Chung SM. Comparative hardness and modulus of tooth-colored restoratives: A depth-sensing microindentation study. Biomaterials. 2004;25(11):2179–2185.
  26. Hahnel S, Henrich A, Bürgers R, Handel G, Rosentritt M. Investigation of mechanical properties of modern dental composites after artificial aging for one year. Oper Dent. 2010;35(4):412–419.
  27. Göhring TN, Gallo L, Lüthy H. Effect of water storage, thermocycling, the incorporation and site of placement of glass-fibers on the flexural strength of veneering composite. Dent Mater. 2005;21(8):761–772.
  28. Karimzadeh A, Ayatollahi MR, Shirazi HA. Mechanical properties of a dental nano-composite in moist media determined by nano-scale measurement. Int J Mater Mech Manuf. 2014;2(1):67–72.
  29. Fan HY, Gan XQ, Liu Y, Zhu ZL, Yu HY. The nanomechanical and tribological properties of restorative dental composites after exposure in different types of media. J Nanomater. 2014;ID:759038.
  30. Crutis AR, Shortall AC, Marquis PM, Palin WM. Water uptake and strength characteristics of a nanofilled resin‑based composite. J Dent. 2008;36(3):186–193.
  31. Hosaka K, Nakajima M, Takahashi M, et al. Relationship between mechanical properties of one‑step self‑etch adhesives and water sorption. Dent Mater. 2010;26(4):360–367.
  32. Wei YJ, Silikas N, Zhang ZT, Watts DC. Hygroscopic dimensional changes of self‑adhering and new‑resin matrix composites during water sorption/desorption cycles. Dent Mater. 2011;27(3):259–266.
  33. Alrobeigy NA. Mechanical properties of contemporary resin compo­sites determined by nanoindentation. Tanta Dent J. 2017;14(3):129–137.
  34. Okada K, Tosaki S, Hirota K, Hume WR. Surface hardness change of restorative filling materials stored in saliva. Dent Mater. 2001;17(1):34–39.
  35. Knobloch L, Kerby RE, Clelland N, Lee J. Hardness and degree of conversion of posterior packable composites. Oper Dent. 2004;29(6):642–649.