Arhun, NeslihanKalender, BerçemÇelik, ÇiğdemTuncer, DuyguBerkmen, Begüm2025-01-212025-01-2120212146-39642146-3972https://search.trdizin.gov.tr/tr/yayin/detay/510072https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12587/22396Background and Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the\reffects of different instrument lubricants on the surface\rmicrohardness of a resin composite.\rMaterial and Method: A total of 180 disk-shaped specimens\rof a resin composite (Filtek Z250; 3M-ESPE) were prepared in\rplastic molds and randomly divided into six groups according\rto the lubricants tested (n= 30)—group 1: control (no\rlubricant was used); group 2: ethanol; group 3: etch-and-rinse\radhesive (Adper Single Bond 2; 3M-ESPE); group 4: self-etch\radhesive (Clearfil SE Bond/the use of adhesive bottle only);\rgroup 5: universal adhesive (G-Premio Bond; GC); and group\r6: Bisco modeling resin. The Vickers hardness number was\rassessed using a microhardness tester. Following the baseline\rmeasurements, finishing/polishing procedures were performed,\rand microhardness was remeasured. The data gathered were\rstatistically analyzed (p< 0.05).\rResults: There was a statistically significant difference\rbetween the control and lubricant groups (p< 0.05). Although\rfinishing/polishing procedures improved the microhardness\rvalues in all the groups, a significant difference was found\rbetween the control and lubricant groups, except for the\rethanol group (p< 0.05).\rConclusion: Instrument lubricants changed the surface\rmicrohardness of the resin composite tested.eninfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessDiş Hekimliğiİstatistik ve OlasılıkArticle4512228510072