Comparison of Surface Roughness and Microhardness of Reinforced Glass Ionomer Cements and Microhybrid Composite

Creative Commons License

Karakaş S. N., Turgut H., Küden C.

Journal of Dentistry Indonesia, cilt.28, sa.3, ss.131-138, 2021 (ESCI) identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 28 Sayı: 3
  • Basım Tarihi: 2021
  • Doi Numarası: 10.14693/jdi.v28i3.1232
  • Dergi Adı: Journal of Dentistry Indonesia
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI)
  • Sayfa Sayıları: ss.131-138
  • Anahtar Kelimeler: atomic force microscopy, composite, giomer, glass ionomer, microhardness, surface roughness, MERGE MINAMATA CONVENTION, RESTORATIVE MATERIALS, MECHANICAL-PROPERTIES, HARDNESS, ENAMEL, DRINKS, SYSTEMS, SPORTS, FOOD
  • Çukurova Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare high viscosity glass ionomer cement (HVGIC), giomer and microhybrid composite using the atomic force microscopy (AFM) and Vickers microhardness. Methods: Three different restorative materials Equia Forte (HVGIC), Beautifil II (giomer) and Solare X (microhybrid composite) were used in this study. A total of 30 samples were prepared, 10 of each of the restorative materials used in our study. Samples were prepared using standard cylindrical Teflon molds with a diameter of 8 mm and a height of 2 mm. The measurements of surface roughness and hardness were performed by using AFM and Vickers microhardness, respectively. The surface roughness was analyzed using the Kruskal Wallis test. One-way variance analysis (ANOVA) and LSD test was used for the surface hardness (α = 0.05). Results:There was no significant difference between the groups according to surface roughness values (p> 0.05). A statistically significant difference was found between all groups in terms of surface hardness. Conclusion: Reinforced glass ionomer cements had similar and surface properties than composite resin.