In Vitro Effect of Mouthrinses on the Microhardness of Three Different Nanohybrid Composite Resins
Table 4
Comparison of microhardness according to mouthrinse × composite resin, mouthrinse × time, and composite resin × time interaction.
Variables
Artificial saliva
CHX 0.12%
CPC 0.075%
CHX 0.12%–CPC 0.05%
Filtek Z350XT
72.68 ± 9.35Aab
70.85 ± 8.06Abc
66.59 ± 9.24Ac
77.17 ± 3.27Ba
Tetric EvoCeram
40.93 ± 4.36Ba
40.45 ± 3.66Ba
40.61 ± 2.78Ba
41.40 ± 2.55Ca
Polofil NHT
71.80 ± 7.95Ab
72.82 ± 10.38Ab
71.97 ± 10.93Ab
85.42 ± 5.43Aa
Artificial saliva
CHX 0.12%
CPC 0.075%
CHX 0.12%-CPC 0.05%
Baseline microhardness
69.05 ± 17.35Aa
69.37 ± 19.22Aa
67.37 ± 18.36Aa
69.69 ± 19.57Aa
Microhardness 14 days
60.52 ± 15.19Bb
59.98 ± 14.80Bb
59.10 ± 14.54Bb
68.12 ± 20.41ABa
Microhardness 21 days
55.83 ± 14.89Cb
54.76 ± 12.86Cb
52.72 ± 11.60Cb
66.19 ± 19.33Ba
Filtek Z350XT
Tetric EvoCeram
Polofil NHT
Baseline microhardness
78.42 ± 5.22Ab
43.92 ± 2.43Ac
84.26 ± 5.33Aa
Microhardness 14 days
71.47 ± 6.51Ba
40.41 ± 2.31Bb
73.92 ± 8.82Ba
Microhardness 21 days
65.58 ± 8.65Ca
38.21 ± 2.61Cb
68.33 ± 9.95Ca
Note: Different capital letters indicate significant differences by columns. Different lower-case letters indicate significant differences by rows. Repeated measures ANOVA with post hoc Tukey analysis.