Color stability of modern composites subjected to different periods of accelerated artificial aging

The aim of this study was to evaluate the color stability of composites subjected to different periods of accelerated artificial aging (AAA). A polytetrafluorethylene matrix (10 x 2 mm) was used to fabricate 24 test specimens of three different composites (n=8): Tetric Ceram (Ivoclar/Vivadent); Filtek P90 and Z250 (3M ESPE), shade A3. After light activation for 20 s (FlashLite 1401), polishing and initial color readout (Spectrophotometer PCB 687; BYK Gardner), the test specimens were subjected to AAA (C-UV; Comexim), in 8-h cycles: 4 h exposure to UV-B rays at 50°C and 4 h condensation at 50°C. At the end of each cycle, color readouts were taken and the test ended when the mean value of ΔE attained a level ≥3.30. Tetric Ceram presented alteration in ΔE equal to 3.33 in the first aging cycle. For Filtek P90 and Z250, two (ΔE=3.60) and four (ΔE=3.42) AAA cycles were necessary. After each cycle, there was a reduction of luminosity in all the samples (ΔL). It was concluded that a short period of AAA was sufficient to promote clinically unacceptable color alteration in composites, and that this alteration was material-dependent.

Analysis of surface hardness of artificially aged resin composites

This study evaluated the effect of artificially accelerated aging (AAA) on the surface hardness of eight composite resins: Filtek Z250, Filtek Supreme, 4 Seasons, Herculite, P60, Tetric Ceram, Charisma, and Filtek Z100. Sixteen specimens were made from the test piece of each material, using an 8.0 × 2.0 mm teflon matrix. After 24 hours, eight specimens from each material were submitted to three surface hardness readings using a Shimadzu Microhardness Tester for 5 seconds at a load of 50 gf. The other eight specimens remained in the artificially accelerated aging machine for 382 hours and were submitted to the same surface hardness analysis. The means of each test specimen were submitted to the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (p > 0.05), ANOVA and Tukey test (p < 0.05). With regard to hardness (F = 86.74, p < 0.0001) the analysis showed significant differences among the resin composite brands. But aging did not influence the hardness of any of the resin composites (F = 0.39, p = 0.53). In this study, there was interaction between the resin composite brand and the aging factors (F = 4.51, p < 0.0002). It was concluded that notwithstanding the type of resin, AAA did not influence surface hardness. However, with regard to hardness there was a significant difference among the resin brands.