Abstract:
OBJECTIVES : To compare an ormocer with a first generation ormocer‐based
composite and a nanocomposite in terms of surface roughness, surface hardness,
and microleakage.
MATERIALS AND METHODS : An ormocer (Admira Fusion), a first generation ormocerbased
composite (Admira) and a nanocomposite (Filtek Z350 XT) were prepared
strictly in accordance with the manufacturer's instruction and recommendation to
provide optimal material properties. Twelve disk samples of each material were
evaluated to assess both surface roughness and surface hardness. For surface
roughness, all samples were finished, polished, and Ra values measured with a
profilometer. For surface hardness, samples were stored in an incubator, polished
and a Vickers diamond indenter was used to record values. For microleakage, 36
standardized, Class V cavities were prepared and randomly divided into three
groups. Restored teeth were thermally fatigued, immersed in 2% methylene blue
solution for 48 h, sectioned, and scored for occlusal and gingival microleakage.
RESULTS : Statistical significance was set at p < .05. The one‐way analysis of
variance identified no significant difference in terms of surface roughness between
the three material groups (p > .05). A significantly higher surface hardness was
identified for the nanocomposite compared to both the ormocer (p < .001) and
ormocer‐based composite (p < .001). Fisher's exact test identified no significant
difference in terms of occlusal microleakage (p = .534) and gingival microleakage
(p = .093) between the three material groups.
CONCLUSIONS : No significant differences in terms of surface roughness or
microleakage were noted. The nanocomposite was significantly harder than the
ormocer materials.
