Search

Objective: This study aimed to investigate the effects of polishing system on the color stability, surface roughness, and hardness of resin composites in the presence and absence of accelerated artificial aging (AAA). Methods: Six resin composites (Universal Restorative 200, G-Aenial Anterior, Ceram-X Duo, Admira, IPS Empress Direct, Clearfil Majesty Esthetic) were evaluated. Thirty disc-shaped samples were prepared for each composite group. Resin composite groups were divided into three subgroups: control (Mylar strip), disc (Optidisc), and rubber (Dimanto) (n=10). Color change (ΔE00) was calculated using the CIEDE 2000 formula. Before and after AAA, the surface roughness (Ra, μm) and hardness (VHN) values were measured. Data were analysed using ANOVA, the Bonferroni test, and Pearson correlation (p

Objectives: This study assessed the color stability of two composites associated with two pulp protectors submitted to accelerated artificial aging (AAA).Methods: 60 test specimens were made with 0.5 mm of protection material (calcium hydroxide - CH or glass ionomer cement - GIC) and 2.5 mm of restoration material (Concept or QuixFil) and divided into 3 groups (n=10) according to the type of protection material/composite, and the control group (no protection). After polishing, color readings were obtained with a spectrophotometer (PCB 6807 Byk Gardner) before and after AAA for 384 hours, and L*, a*, and b* coordinates and total color variation (ΔE) were analyzed (2-way ANOVA, Bonferroni, α=05).Results: Composites placed on CH presented lower L* levels than those on GIC, which presented higher L* values than the control group and lower b* values than those of the CH group. The Concept composite presented higher ΔE levels for all groups, differing statistically from QuixFil, except when placed on GIC.Conclusions: It was concluded that the protection material could affect the color stability and AAA is a factor that enhances this effect, depending on the type of composite used. (Eur J Dent 2010;4:6-11)

Tests simulating exposure to severe weather conditions have been relevant in seeking new applications for particleboard. This study aimed to produce particleboards with residues of CCB (chromium-copper-boron oxides) impregnated Pinus sp. and castor oil-based polyurethane resin, and to evaluate their performance before and after artificial accelerated aging. Panels were produced with different particle mass, resin content and pressing time, resulting eight treatments. Particles moisture and size distribution were determined, beyond panel physical and mechanical properties, according to NBR14810-3: 2006. After characterization, treatments B and G (small adhesive consumption and better mechanical performance, respectively) were chosen to artificial aging tests. Statistical results analysis showed best performances were achieved for waterproof aged samples, of both B and G treatments. As example, in treatment B, MOR and MOE values were 23 MPa and 2,297 MPa, samples before exposure; 26 MPa and 3,185 MPa, 32 MPa and 3,982 MPa for samples after exposure (non-sealed and sealed), respectively.

This study evaluated the effect of artificially accelerated aging (AAA) on the surface hardness of eight composite resins: Filtek Z250, Filtek Supreme, 4 Seasons, Herculite, P60, Tetric Ceram, Charisma, and Filtek Z100. Sixteen specimens were made from the test piece of each material, using an 8.0 × 2.0 mm teflon matrix. After 24 hours, eight specimens from each material were submitted to three surface hardness readings using a Shimadzu Microhardness Tester for 5 seconds at a load of 50 gf. The other eight specimens remained in the artificially accelerated aging machine for 382 hours and were submitted to the same surface hardness analysis. The means of each test specimen were submitted to the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (p > 0.05), ANOVA and Tukey test (p < 0.05). With regard to hardness (F = 86.74, p < 0.0001) the analysis showed significant differences among the resin composite brands. But aging did not influence the hardness of any of the resin composites (F = 0.39, p = 0.53). In this study, there was interaction between the resin composite brand and the aging factors (F = 4.51, p < 0.0002). It was concluded that notwithstanding the type of resin, AAA did not influence surface hardness. However, with regard to hardness there was a significant difference among the resin brands.