FDI World Dental Congress 2024, İstanbul, Türkiye, 12 - 15 Eylül 2024, cilt.74, ss.227, (Özet Bildiri)
AIM or PURPOSE: To evaluate the surface microhardness and roughness of direct, indirect and 3D-printed permanent resin restorations after thermal aging.
MATERIALS and METHOD: In this study, three different resin materials used in permanent restorations were compared: direct resin(G-aenial anterior, GC, Japan), indirect resin (SR Nexco, _ Ivoclar, Liechtenstein) and 3D-printed resin (Crowntec, Saremco, Switzerland). Disc-shaped 20 samples (10 £ 2 mm) of each material were fabricated according to the manufacturer’s directions (N=60). Samples were polished using aluminum oxide discs (Sof-Lex, 3M ESPE, Germany). The surface microhardness(VHN) values of the samples was measured with a Vickers microhardness tester (HMV-2, Shimadzu, Japan)(n=10). Surface roughness(Ra) values was measured from the top surface of the samples using a contact profilometer. (Mahr M300C Carl-Mahr, Germany)(n=10). Measurements were made on the top surface of the samples. Surface microhardness and surface roughness measurements were subjected before and after thermal aging (10,000 cycles, 5-55° C). The statistical analysis between groups was performed using the Variance analysis for repeated measurements, Bonferroni test was used for binary comparisons.(p=0.05).
RESULTS: Statistically; VHN values decreased in all groups after thermal aging(p<0.05). No significant difference was observed in Ra values in all groups after thermal aging (p>0.05). Between the groups, the indirect resin composite samples showed the highest VHN values before and after thermal aging, and the indirect resin samples showed lower Ra values than the direct resin samples(p<0.05).
CONCLUSION(S): After thermal aging, the indirect resin composite showed higher surface microhardness than the 3Dprinter and direct resin composites. Under thermal aging conditions, the choice of the material showed no significant difference when the surface roughness was evaluated.