Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 311
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 2  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 11-16

Quantitative assessment of surface microhardness of esthetic restorative materials after exposure to different immersion regimes in a cola drink: An in vitro study


1 Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Punjab Civil Medical Services Dental, Mohali, Punjab, India
2 Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Government Dental College and Hospital, Patiala, Punjab, India
3 Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India

Correspondence Address:
Navroop Kaur Bajwa
House No. 1662, Sector-70, Mohali, Punjab
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/2454-3160.202122

Rights and Permissions

Objective: To compare the effect of different immersion regimes in a cola drink on surface microhardness of esthetic restorative materials. Subjects and Methods: Two hundred samples were grouped into four equal groups of fifty samples each: Group I - conventional glass ionomer, Group II – resin-modified glass ionomer, Group III - polyacid-modified resin composite, and Group IV - composite resin. Each group was further subdivided into five subgroups of ten samples each: Subgroup A - samples were kept immersed in artificial saliva. Subgroup B - samples were immersed in cola drink once a day. Subgroup C - samples were immersed in cola drink, three times a day. Subgroup D - Samples were immersed in cola drink five times a day. Subgroup E - samples were immersed in cola drink ten times a day. Each immersion lasted 5 min. The immersion protocol was repeated for 7 days. Results: Maximum microhardness was seen in composite resin samples followed by conventional glass ionomer, polyacid-modified resin composite, and least microhardness was seen in resin-modified glass ionomer. Conclusion: Resistance to change in surface microhardness was seen in the following sequence: Composite resin > polyacid-modified resin composite > resin-modified glass ionomer > conventional glass ionomer.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed991    
    Printed85    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded15    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal