Effect of monomer composition and filler fraction on surface microhardness and depth of cure of experimental resin composites

This study evaluated microhardness profiles and calculated depths of cure at 80% of the surface microhardness of experimental dental resin composites having different base monomer compositions and different filler fractions. Composites were prepared using four different base monomers (bisphenol A‐gl...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:European journal of oral sciences 2023-06, Vol.131 (3), p.e12933-n/a
Main Authors: Leyva del Rio, Diana, Johnston, William Michael
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Bisphenol A
Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate
Composite materials
composite resin
Composite Resins
Composition
Curing
Dental cement
Dental materials
Dental restorative materials
Fillers
Glycol dimethacrylates
hardness tests
Materials Testing
Methacrylates
Microhardness
Monomers
Polyethylene Glycols
Polymethacrylic Acids
Polyurethanes
Resins
Three dimensional printing
Triethylene glycol dimethacrylate
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This study evaluated microhardness profiles and calculated depths of cure at 80% of the surface microhardness of experimental dental resin composites having different base monomer compositions and different filler fractions. Composites were prepared using four different base monomers (bisphenol A‐glycidyl methacrylate [Bis‐GMA], urethane dimethacrylate [UDMA], ethoxylated bisphenol‐A dimethacrylate [Bis‐EMA], and Fit‐852) with triethylene glycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA) used as a co‐monomer at three filler:resin matrix weight percent fractions (50:50, 60:40, and 70:30). Uncured material was placed in 3D printed molds and light cured for 40 s from the top surface only. Knoop microhardness was measured at the top of the specimen, and at every 0.5 mm up to 4 mm in depth. Microhardness at the surface increased in all experimental composites as the filler fraction increased. When comparing base monomers, microhardness was the highest in UDMA‐based composites, while Bis‐GMA‐based composites showed the lowest values. When comparing depth of cure as a function of base monomer type, both Bis‐GMA and Bis‐EMA showed significantly lower values than UDMA or Fit‐852. Composites having 50 wt% filler showed a significantly higher depth of cure than those with 60 and 70 wt% filler. Base monomer and filler fraction significantly influence microhardness and depth of cure in these experimental composites.
ISSN:0909-8836
1600-0722
DOI:10.1111/eos.12933