AI Summary & Key Takeaways
AI InsightThe similar performance was not observed compared to 3M Z250
📌 3 Key Takeaways
Abstract
Aim The objective of this study was to investigate the surface microhardness and roughness of several michrohybrid dental composite restorative materials comparatively. Material and method The study encompassed four distinct brands of microhybrid-type dental composites, including two newly introduced ones, Dentac Myra and Dentac Pergamon, alongside Gradia Direct Posterior and 3M Z250. Additionally, a newly manufactured Parion Flow flowable composite was also included. For surface microhardness testing, 45 composite discs were prepared with a diameter of 5 mm and a thickness of 2 mm for each group (n=9). For surface roughness, 45 composite discs with a diameter of 8 mm and a thickness of 2 mm were prepared (n=9). Surface microhardness was measured using the Vickers Hardness Test device, and surface roughness was measured using a contact profilometer. One-Way ANOVA with Tukey’s HSD analysis and the Kruskal-Wallis H test with Dunnett’s correction were used for intergroup comparisons. Results Strongly significant differences were observed among groups in terms of microhardness (p < 0.0001; F = 94.75). The highest Vickers hardness number (VHN) was obtained for 3M Z250, while Gradia Direct Posterior exhibited inferior values compared to Myra (p > 0.05) and Pergamon (p = 0.0378). Significant differences were found among groups in terms of surface roughness (p < 0.0001; H = 34.36), with Gradia Direct Posterior having the highest roughness value. Conclusion Myra and Pergamon demonstrated better performance in terms of surface roughness and microhardness values compared to Gradia Direct Posterior. The similar performance was not observed compared to 3M Z250