Effect of preheating and shade on surface microhardness of silorane‐based composites

Abstract

Preheating, shade, and composition of the tested composite resins affected their surface microhardness.

The effect of preheating resin composites on surface hardness: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…This systematic review evaluated 13 studies that were conducted to evaluate the microhardness of 16 different brands of resin composites. Six of the studies (46%) evaluated the microhardness of the Z250 microhybrid resin composite [192627282930]. Two studies (15%) evaluated the microhardness of the Filtek Silorane resin composite (3M ESPE) [2729], and 2 other studies (15%) evaluated the microhardness of the TPH Spectra microhybrid resin composite (Dentsply Caulk, Milford, DE, USA) [816].…”

“…Six of the studies (46%) evaluated the microhardness of the Z250 microhybrid resin composite [192627282930]. Two studies (15%) evaluated the microhardness of the Filtek Silorane resin composite (3M ESPE) [2729], and 2 other studies (15%) evaluated the microhardness of the TPH Spectra microhybrid resin composite (Dentsply Caulk, Milford, DE, USA) [816]. The remaining studies evaluated other resin composites: Charisma (Heraeus-Kulzer, Hanau, Germany) [21], Enamel Plus HFO (Micerium SpA, Avegno, Italy), Opallis (FGM Produtos Odontologicos, Joinville, Brazil), Ceram X Duo (Dentsply DeTrey GmbH, Konstanz, Germany) [22], Grandio (Voco, Cuxhaven, Germany), Simile (Jeneric Pentron, Wallingford, CT, USA), Tetric N-Ceram (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) [23], Microhybrid Esthet-X (Dentsply Caulk) [16], light-cured low-stress posterior bulk fill flowable base composites, Surefil SDR (Dentsply Caulk) [24], Vit-l-escence (microhybrid, Ultradent, Salt Lake City, UT, USA), Tetric Ceram HB (Ivoclar Vivadent), Filtek Supreme Ultra (3M ESPE), Filtek LS Low Shrink Posterior Restorative System (3M ESPE) [25], and a nanofilled composite (Filtek Supreme Plus, 3M ESPE) [19].…”

“…The rest of the studies were published between 2007 and 2011 [8161928]. All the reviewed studies (100%) used either the Vickers or Knoop hardness tests as the primary testing method to determine microhardness [8161921222324252627282930]. However, the studies showed considerable variation in the secondary testing methods: shrinkage gap formation [21], the 3-point bending test [22], depth of cure [1624], viscosity [825], degree of conversion, plasticization [24], flexural strength, and the elastic modulus [27].…”

“…Of the remaining 112 manuscripts, 1 clinical trial and 1 review article were excluded, and 97 other studies were excluded because they evaluated the effect of preheating a composite on microleakage and other viscoelastic and mechanical properties of composites than microhardness. Finally, 13 studies were selected [8161921222324252627282930]. The detailed study selection procedures are illustrated in a flowchart (Figure 1).…”

Bulk Fill Composite Resins. A Novelty in Resin-Based Restorative Materials

“…There are many parameters that affect depth of cure of composite resins. These contain composition (monomers, inorganic fillers, photoinitiators, coupling agents) [5][6][7], shade and translucency [8] of the composite resin and characteristics of the light-curing unit (LCU) such as light intensity, thermal emission, wave length range, diameter of the tip and curing mode [9]. Other factors such as exposure time [10] and distance of the restorative from the tip of the LCU [11] may also affect depth of cure of composite materials.…”