RESUMO
Abstract This study evaluates the effect of curing modes and times on the mechanical properties of nanocomposites. Two nanocomposite resins were investigated: suprananohybrid (Estelite Posterior Quick; EP) and nanohybrid (Solare X; SX). They were polymerized with a light-emitting diode light-curing units (LED LCU, Valo) as follows: standard mode for 20s (ST20), high power mode for 12s (HP12), high power mode for 20s (HP20), extra power mode for 6s (XP6), and extra power mode for 20s (XP20). For Vickers microhardness (HV), disc-shaped specimens were fabricated (n=10). For the three-point bending test, bar-shaped specimens were fabricated (n=10). Flexural strength and resilience modulus were calculated. The fractured surfaces and specimen surfaces of composites were observed using scanning electron microscopy. The data were analyzed with repeated measures ANOVA, two-way variance, and Bonferroni tests (p<0.05). On the top and bottom surfaces of the EP nanocomposite resin, ST20 and HP12 revealed statistically higher HV than with XP6. Moreover, HP20 and XP20 had statistically higher HV than HP12 and XP6. For the SX nanocomposite resin, HP20 had statistically higher HV than HP12. For EP and SX, there were no significant differences in flexural strength and resilience modulus regarding the curing modes and times. Furthermore, SX demonstrated lower mechanical properties than EP. Scanning electron microscopy indicated that both nanocomposites had similar surface appearances. However, with all curing modes and times, SX exhibited layered fractures and more crack formations than EP. Different curing modes and times could influence the microhardness of nanocomposites.
Resumen Este estudio evalúa el efecto del modo y tiempo de fotocurado sobre las propiedades mecánicas de los nanocompuestos. Se investigaron dos resinas nanocompuestas: supra-nanohíbrida (Estelite Posterior Quick; EP) y nanohíbrida (Solare X; SX). Se polimerizaron con unidades de fotopolimerización de diodos emisores de luz (LED LCU, Valo) de la siguiente manera: modo estándar durante 20s (ST20), modo de alta potencia durante 12s (HP12), modo de alta potencia durante 20s (HP20) , modo extra power durante 6s (XP6) y modo extra power durante 20s (XP20). Para la microdureza Vickers (HV), se fabricaron especímenes en forma de disco (n=10). Para el ensayo de flexión de tres puntos, se fabricaron probetas en forma de barra (n=10). Se calcularon la resistencia a la flexión y el módulo de resistencia. Las superficies fracturadas se observaron mediante microscopía electrónica de barrido. Los datos se analizaron con ANOVA varianza de dos vías y pruebas de Bonferroni (p<0,05). En las superficies superior e inferior de la resina nanocompuesta EP, ST20 y HP12 revelaron un HV estadísticamente mayor que con XP6. Además, HP20 y XP20 tenían un HV estadísticamente más alto que HP12 y XP6. Para la resina nanocompuesta SX, HP20 tenía un HV estadísticamente más alto que HP12. Para EP y SX, no hubo diferencias significativas en la resistencia a la flexión y el módulo de resistencia con respecto al modo y tiempo de fotocurado. Además, SX demostró propiedades mecánicas inferiores que EP. La microscopía electrónica de barrido indicó que ambos nanocompuestos son similares en la superficie. Sin embargo, SX exhibió fracturas en capas y más formaciones de grietas que EP. Diferentes modos y tiempos de fotocurado podrían influir en la microdureza de los nanocompuestos.
Assuntos
Nanocompostos , Cura Luminosa de Adesivos Dentários , TurquiaRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the microhardness and surface roughness of two different bulk-fill composites polymerized with light-curing unit (LCU) with different polymerization times before and after the application of a home bleaching agent. MATERIALS-METHODS: For both microhardness and surface roughness tests, 6 groups were prepared with bulk-fill materials (SonicFill, Filtek Bulk Fill) according to different polymerization times (10, 20, and 30 s). 102 specimens were prepared using Teflon molds (4 mm depth and 5 mm diameter) and polymerized with LCU. 30 specimens (n = 5) were assessed for microhardness. Before home bleaching agent application, the bottom/top (B/T) microhardness ratio was evaluated. After bleaching agent application, the microhardness measurements were performed on top surfaces. Roughness measurements were performed in 72 specimens (n = 12) before and after bleaching application. Additionally, for SEM analyses, two specimens from all tested groups were prepared before and after bleaching agent application. The data B/T microhardness ratio before bleaching was analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey's HSD test. The data from the top surface of specimens' microhardness before and after bleaching were analyzed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test, Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney U tests. The data from surface roughness tests were statistically analyzed by multivariate analysis of variance and Bonferroni test (p < 0.05). RESULTS: The B/T microhardness ratio results revealed no significant differences between groups (p > 0.05). Comparing the microhardness values of the composites' top surfaces before and after bleaching, a significant decrease was observed exclusively in FB30s (p < 0.05). No significant differences in surface roughness values were observed when the groups were compared based on bulk-fill materials (p > 0.05) while the polymerization time affected the surface roughness of the SF20s and SF30s groups (p < 0.05). After bleaching, surface roughness values were significantly increased in the SF20s and SF30s groups (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The clinicians should adhere to the polymerization time recommended by the manufacturer to ensure the durability of the composite material in the oral environment.