Leal Andreia, Paula Anabela, Ramalho Amílcar, Esteves Miguel, Ferreira Manuel Marques, Carrilho Eunice
Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, Coimbra - Portugal.
Faculty of Sciences and Technology, University of Coimbra, Coimbra - Portugal.
J Appl Biomater Funct Mater. 2015 Dec 18;13(4):e381-8. doi: 10.5301/jabfm.5000239.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the roughness and microhardness of SonicFill™ (Kerr), and compare it with Filtek™ Supreme XTE (3M ESPE) after 2 bleaching regimens.
Sixty cylindrical specimens (10 × 2 mm) of each of the 2 composites were prepared and divided into 6 groups (n = 20): groups 1, 2: no treatment; groups 3, 4: 10% carbamide peroxide (CP); and groups 5, 6: 35% hydrogen peroxide (HP) plus LED. After treatments, specimens were thermocycled (500 cycles, 5 °C/55 °C, dwell time 30 minutes). A mechanical roughness tester was employed to measure the surface roughness parameters and the Vickers test to measure microhardness. One-way ANOVA, Tukey and Bonferroni methods with a significance level of 5% were used for the statistical analysis.
For SonicFill™, there was no statistically significant difference in microhardness between the control group (no. 1) and the bleached groups (nos. 3, 5), but there was difference between CP and HP treatments; for Filtek™ Supreme XTE, there was no significant difference in microhardness among all groups. There was no significant difference in average roughness (Ra) and the root mean square of the roughness (Rq) among all groups. The mean roughness depth (Rz) parameter showed no statistically significant differences among all groups for SonicFill™, but in Filtek™ Supreme XTE, there was a significant increase between control and bleaching treatments; roughness skewness (Rsk) showed no statistically significant differences among all groups for SonicFill™ and Filtek™ Supreme XTE, except for nos. 2 and 4, where the Rsk increased with CP.
The microhardness of Filtek™ Supreme XTE is less affected by bleaching than that of SonicFill™. Both bleaching treatments affect Rz in Filtek™ Supreme XTE in contrast to SonicFill™, but only the CP treatment affects the Rsk of Filtek™ Supreme XTE, with no significant effect of SonicFill™.
本研究旨在评估SonicFill™（ Kerr公司）的粗糙度和显微硬度，并在两种漂白方案后将其与Filtek™ Supreme XTE（3M ESPE公司）进行比较。
制备两种复合材料的60个圆柱形试件（10×2毫米），并分为6组（n = 20）：第1、2组：不处理；第3、4组：10%过氧化脲（CP）；第5、6组：35%过氧化氢（HP）加LED。处理后，对试件进行热循环（500次循环，5℃/55℃，保持时间30分钟）。使用机械粗糙度测试仪测量表面粗糙度参数，使用维氏试验测量显微硬度。采用显著性水平为5%的单因素方差分析、Tukey法和Bonferroni法进行统计分析。
对于SonicFill™，对照组（第1组）和漂白组（第3、5组）之间的显微硬度无统计学显著差异，但CP和HP处理之间存在差异；对于Filtek™ Supreme XTE，所有组之间的显微硬度无显著差异。所有组之间的平均粗糙度（Ra）和粗糙度均方根（Rq）无显著差异。平均粗糙度深度（Rz）参数在SonicFill™的所有组之间无统计学显著差异，但在Filtek™ Supreme XTE中，对照和漂白处理之间有显著增加；粗糙度偏度（Rsk）在SonicFill™和Filtek™ Supreme XTE的所有组之间无统计学显著差异，但第2和4组除外，其中Rsk随CP增加。
Filtek™ Supreme XTE的显微硬度受漂白的影响小于SonicFill™。与SonicFill™相比，两种漂白处理均影响Filtek™ Supreme XTE的Rz，但只有CP处理影响Filtek™ Supreme XTE的Rsk，而SonicFill™无显著影响。
