Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Evaluates microhardness in demineralized dentin restored with modified materials, indicating material composition impacts recovery.
This study evaluated how the addition of 5 wt% bioactive glass and 15 wt% short glass fibers to EQUIA Forte HT affects the microhardness, micromorphology, and elemental composition of demineralized dentin. Class I cavities in 28 human third molars were demineralized with 37% phosphoric acid and restored with: (1) Filtek Universal composite, (2) EQUIA Forte HT, (3) EQUIA Forte HT + 5wt% BAG, or (4) EQUIA Forte HT + 15wt% short glass fibers. After 4 weeks of storage in phosphate-buffered saline at 37 °C, the teeth were cut in half, obtaining two samples from each tooth (n = 14). Vickers microhardness (HV0.1) was measured on demineralized dentin 50–100 μm apical to the restoration interface. Representative specimens (n = 2) were examined using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS). Data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA (α = 0.05). Unmodified EQUIA Forte HT showed the highest mean dentin microhardness recovery (25.06 ± 1.42 HV0.1), followed by composite (17.31 ± 0.66 HV0.1), BAG-modified (23.74 ± 1.37 HV0.1) and fiber-reinforced (22.15 ± 1.06 HV0.1) groups (p < 0.001, all pairwise comparisons p ≤ 0.039). Glass hybrids showed prominent Ca/P peaks; modified groups had elevated Si (BAG) and Al (fibers). SEM revealed smoother surfaces with fewer cracks in modified materials. Unmodified EQUIA Forte HT produced the highest short-term microhardness recovery, while BAG and fiber additions altered surface morphology and elemental composition but slightly reduced early hardness.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Šalinović et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: