Methods: One hundred and eighty standardized disc samples were prepared, of which ninety samples each were used for surface roughness and microhardness test, respectively. They were divided equally into: Group 1 (Filtek-Z350-XT), Group 2 (Zmack-Comp), and Group 3 (Zr-Hybrid). For surface roughness test, all samples were polished with aluminium oxide discs and further subdivided into aged and unaged subgroups, in which composite samples in aged subgroups were subjected to 2500 thermal cycles. Next, all the samples were subjected to surface roughness test using a contact stylus profilometer. As for microhardness test, all the aged and unaged samples were tested using a Vickers hardness machine with a load of 300 kgf for 10 s and viewed under a digital microscope to obtain microhardness value. Data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA followed by post hoc Tukey's honestly significant difference and paired sample t-test with significance level set at P = 0.05.
Results: In both the aged and unaged groups, Zr-Hybrid showed statistically significantly lower surface roughness (P < 0.05) than Filtek-Z350-XT and Zmack-Comp, but no statistically significant difference was noted between Filtek-Z350-XT and Zmack-Comp (P > 0.05). A similar pattern was noted in microhardness test, whereby Zr-Hybrid showed the highest value (P < 0.05) followed by Filtek-Z350-XT and lastly Zmack-Comp. Besides, significant differences in surface roughness and microhardness were noted between the aged and unaged groups.
Conclusion: Zr-Hybrid seems to demonstrate better surface roughness and microhardness value before and after artificial ageing.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire consisting of 35 questions was distributed by mail or an online survey to 425 registered dentists selected according to place of work by stratified random sampling.
RESULTS: One hundred fifty-three dentists responded to the survey. A positive attitude towards FS and PRR was noted among most Malaysian dentists. About half of the respondents used FS/PRR occasionally (48.4%), while few (13.7%) applied them routinely. The majority of the dentists agreed that minimally invasive dentistry is important and FS are effective in caries prevention, using them on high caries-risk individuals. Most of the dentists used pumice or paste to clean teeth before placing FS/PRR. A significant number of dentists used a bonding agent prior to placing FS. Although only 57.5% dentists were aware of guidelines for FS use, most dentists agreed that guidelines are important.
CONCLUSION: Although there was a positive attitude towards FS/PRR, few dentists applied them routinely. Some of the steps undertaken for placement of FS and PRR were outdated. Updating local guidelines for dentists to ensure uniform practice of FS and PRR is justified.