The introduction of many new posterior composite resins suggest that these products are rapidly gaining popularity. Curing efficacy is one of the important factor for the success of the composite resin restorations. The purpose of this study was to ev...
The introduction of many new posterior composite resins suggest that these products are rapidly gaining popularity. Curing efficacy is one of the important factor for the success of the composite resin restorations. The purpose of this study was to evaulate the microhardness and depth of cure and to determine if significant enhancements in physical and mechanical properties have been achieved for these materials compares with one popular conventional composite resins. For the three posterior and one conventional composites tested (SureFil, ALERT, Prodigy and Z100), the value for microhardness was determined. The depth of cure was evaluated by the measurements of microhardness. KHN (Knoop Hardness Number) values were then obtained at 0, 2, 3, 4, and 5 mm using a 100 g load and 10 s dwell time. Adequate depth of cure was determined as the bottom hardness being at least 80% of the top.
The results were obtained as follows;
1. Conventional composite resin, Z100 showed harder surface than that of posterior composite resin. Upper surface was harder than lower surface.
2. The depth of cure of composite resins decreased with increasing thickness of resin.
3. No composite had adequate depth of cure when tested in increments greater than 2mm thick.