Effect of storage in water and thermocycling on hardness and roughness of resin materials for temporary restorations

Materials Research. 2010;13(3):355-359 DOI 10.1590/S1516-14392010000300013

 

Journal Homepage

Journal Title: Materials Research

ISSN: 1516-1439 (Print)

Publisher: Associação Brasileira de Metalurgia e Materiais (ABM); Associação Brasileira de Cerâmica (ABC); Associação Brasileira de Polímeros (ABPol)

LCC Subject Category: Technology: Electrical engineering. Electronics. Nuclear engineering: Materials of engineering and construction. Mechanics of materials

Country of publisher: Brazil

Language of fulltext: English

Full-text formats available: PDF, HTML, XML

 

AUTHORS

Jerusa Cleci de Oliveira
Glauber Aiello
Bruna Mendes
Vanessa Migliorini Urban
Nara Hellen Campanha
Janaina Habib Jorge

EDITORIAL INFORMATION

Peer review

Editorial Board

Instructions for authors

Time From Submission to Publication: 36 weeks

 

Abstract | Full Text

PURPOSE: This study evaluated the effect of storage in water and thermocycling on hardness and roughness of resin materials for temporary restorations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Three acrylic resins (Dencor-De, Duralay-Du, and Vipi Cor-VC) were selected and one composite resin (Opallis-Op) was used as a parameter for comparison. The materials were prepared according to the manufacturers' instructions and were placed in stainless steel moulds (20 mm in diameter and 5 mm thick). Thirty samples of each resin were made and divided into three groups (n = 10) according to the moment of Vickers hardness (VHN) and roughness (Ra) analyses: C (control group): immediately after specimen preparation; Sw: after storage in distilled water at 37 °C for 24 hours; Tc: after thermocycling (3000 cycles; 5-55 °C, 30 seconds dwell time). Data were submitted to 2-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's test (&#945; = 0.05). RESULTS: Op resin had higher surface hardness values (p < 0.0001; 25.4 ± 3.4) than the other ones (De = 4.5 ± 0.6; Du = 5.5 ± 0.4; VC = 6.1 ± 0.9). There was no statistical difference (p > 0.05) in roughness among materials (De = 0.31 ± 0.07; Du = 0.51 ± 0.20; VC = 0.41 ± 0.15; Op = 0.42 ± 0.18). Storage in water did not change hardness and roughness of the tested materials (p > 0.05). There was a significant increase in roughness after thermocycling (p < 0.05), except for material Du, which showed no significant change in roughness in any evaluated period (p = 0.99). CONCLUSION: Thermocycling increased the roughness in most tested materials without affecting hardness, while storage in water had no significant effect in the evaluated properties.