TA COMPARISON OF MICROHARDNESS OF INDIRECT COMPOSITE RESTORATIVE MATERIALS

he purpose of this study was to compare the microhardness of four indirect composite resins. Forty cylindrical samples were prepared according to the manufacturer’s recommendations using a Teflon mold. Ten specimens were produced from each tested material, constituting four groups (n=10) as follows: G1- Artglass; G2- Sinfony; G3- Solidex; G4- Targis. Microhardness was determined by the Vickers indentation technique with a load of 300g for 10 seconds. Four indentations were made on each sample, determining the mean microhardness values for each specimen. Descriptive statistics data for the experimental conditions were: G1- Artglass (mean ±?standard deviation: 55.26 ± 1.15HVN; median: 52.6); G2- Sinfony (31.22 ± 0.65HVN; 31.30); G3- Solidex (52.25 ± 1.55HVN; 52.60); G4- Targis (72.14 ± 2.82HVN; 73.30). An exploratory data analysis was performed to determine the most appropriate statistical test through: (I) Levene’s for homogeneity of variances; (II) ANOVA on ranks (Kruskal-Wallis); (III) Dunn’s multiple comparison test (0.05). Targis presented the highest microhardness values while Sinfony presented the lowest. Artglass and Solidex were found as intermediate materials. These results indicate that distinct mechanical properties may be observed at specific materials. The composition of each material as well as variations on polymerization methods are possibly responsibles for the difference found in microhardness. Therefore, indirect composite resin materials that guarantee both good esthetics and adequate mechanical properties may be considered as substitutes of natural teeth. UNITERMS: Microhardness; Indirect composite