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 ± 9.35^Aab	70.85 ± 8.06^Abc	66.59 ± 9.24^Ac	77.17 ± 3.27^Ba
Tetric EvoCeram	40.93 ± 4.36^Ba	40.45 ± 3.66^Ba	40.61 ± 2.78^Ba	41.40 ± 2.55^Ca
Polofil NHT	71.80 ± 7.95^Ab	72.82 ± 10.38^Ab	71.97 ± 10.93^Ab	85.42 ± 5.43^Aa
	Artificial saliva	CHX 0.12%	CPC 0.075%	CHX 0.12%-CPC 0.05%
Baseline microhardness	69.05 ± 17.35^Aa	69.37 ± 19.22^Aa	67.37 ± 18.36^Aa	69.69 ± 19.57^Aa
Microhardness 14 days	60.52 ± 15.19^Bb	59.98 ± 14.80^Bb	59.10 ± 14.54^Bb	68.12 ± 20.41^ABa
Microhardness 21 days	55.83 ± 14.89^Cb	54.76 ± 12.86^Cb	52.72 ± 11.60^Cb	66.19 ± 19.33^Ba
	Filtek Z350XT	Tetric EvoCeram	Polofil NHT
Baseline microhardness	78.42 ± 5.22^Ab	43.92 ± 2.43^Ac	84.26 ± 5.33^Aa
Microhardness 14 days	71.47 ± 6.51^Ba	40.41 ± 2.31^Bb	73.92 ± 8.82^Ba
Microhardness 21 days	65.58 ± 8.65^Ca	38.21 ± 2.61^Cb	68.33 ± 9.95^Ca

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.