Cargando…

Microhardness evaluation of silorane and methacrylate composites submitted to erosion and abrasion processes

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the Knoop hardness number (KHN) of methacrylate (MC) and silorane (SC) composites after being submitted to erosion and abrasion processes. Material and methods: Forty samples were made with each composite: MC and SC. The samples were divided into eigh...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gazola, Eloá Aguiar, Rego, Marcos Augusto, Brandt, William Cunha, D’Arce, Maria Beatriz Freitas, Liporoni, Priscila Christiane Suzy
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Taylor & Francis 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5433213/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28642903
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/23337931.2015.1084884
Descripción
Sumario:Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the Knoop hardness number (KHN) of methacrylate (MC) and silorane (SC) composites after being submitted to erosion and abrasion processes. Material and methods: Forty samples were made with each composite: MC and SC. The samples were divided into eight groups (n = 10) according to the type of composite (G1–G4, MC; G5–G8, SC) and the beverages involved in the erosion process (G1 and G5 – Control (C), without erosion, with abrasion; G2 and G6 – Orange Juice (OJ), abrasion; G3 and G7 – Smirnoff Ice® (SI), abrasion; G4 and G8 – Gatorade® (GA), abrasion). The KHN test was performed 24 h after the last cycle of erosion/abrasion. Results: The MC groups showed smaller KHN values for the SI group (p < 0.05) when compared to the Control and OJ groups; however, for the SC groups, no differences were found (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Methacrylate composite when submitted to acidic beverages erosive challenge combined with abrasive process might alter its surface microhardness. However, the beverages used in the present study were not able to interfere in silorane composite surface microhardness.