{"id":{"repo_id":"umn","oai_identifier":"oai:conservancy.umn.edu:11299/262759"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/umn/oai:conservancy.umn.edu:11299/262759","repository":{"repo_id":"umn","name":"University of Minnesota","base_url":"https://conservancy.umn.edu/server/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"Comparison Of Vickers Hardness Between Dental Ceramics And Hybrid Materials","abstract":"The study aims to compare Vickers hardness of five definitive crown materials in a controlled laboratory setting. Materials & Methods: Five specimens (15 x 12 x 1.5 mm) were obtained from each tested material: zirconia (Lava Ultimate), lithium disilicate (IPS e.max CAD), lithium silicate reinforced with zirconia (Celtra Duo CAD), dual polymer hybrid ceramic (Vita Enamic) and resin ceramic hybrid (VarseoSmile Crown Plus). Vickers indenter (Wilson VH3100, Buehler) was used to create 6 pyramid-shaped indentations on each specimen and surface hardness was then measured. Results: A statistically significant difference in Vickers Hardness was found between all tested materials. Zirconia has the highest Vickers hardness while VarseoSmile BEGO has the lowest. Celtra Duo has a higher mean microhardness than Emax, yet still lower than Zirconia. Vita Enamic had lower microhardness than both Emax and Zirconia. VarseoSmile BEGO has lower microhardness than both Emax and Zirconia. Conclusion: Vickers Hardness for the tested materials can be classified as follows: Zirconia > Celtra Duo > Emax > Vita Enamic > Varseosmile BEGO.","abstract_html":"The study aims to compare Vickers hardness of five definitive crown materials in a controlled laboratory setting. Materials & Methods: Five specimens (15 x 12 x 1.5 mm) were obtained from each tested material: zirconia (Lava Ultimate), lithium disilicate (IPS e.max CAD), lithium silicate reinforced with zirconia (Celtra Duo CAD), dual polymer hybrid ceramic (Vita Enamic) and resin ceramic hybrid (VarseoSmile Crown Plus). Vickers indenter (Wilson VH3100, Buehler) was used to create 6 pyramid-shaped indentations on each specimen and surface hardness was then measured. Results: A statistically significant difference in Vickers Hardness was found between all tested materials. Zirconia has the highest Vickers hardness while VarseoSmile BEGO has the lowest. Celtra Duo has a higher mean microhardness than Emax, yet still lower than Zirconia. Vita Enamic had lower microhardness than both Emax and Zirconia. VarseoSmile BEGO has lower microhardness than both Emax and Zirconia. Conclusion: Vickers Hardness for the tested materials can be classified as follows: Zirconia > Celtra Duo > Emax > Vita Enamic > Varseosmile BEGO.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Rameh, Stephanie"],"institution":null,"degree_name":null,"degree_level":null,"degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2024,"date_issued":"2024-05","date_published":"2024-05","updated_at":"2026-07-24T05:19:54Z","subjects":["Dental ceramics","Hybrid materials","Vickers hardness"],"languages":["en"],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://hdl.handle.net/11299/262759","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Rameh, Stephanie"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2024-04-30T10:17:46Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2024-04-30T10:17:46Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2024-05"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis or Dissertation"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Dental ceramics","Hybrid materials","Vickers hardness"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language.iso","label":"Language (ISO)","values":["en"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["https://hdl.handle.net/11299/262759"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description","label":"Description","values":["University of Minnesota M.S. thesis. May 2024. Major: Dentistry. Advisor: Fengyuan Zheng. 1 computer file (PDF); iii, 33 pages."]},{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["The study aims to compare Vickers hardness of five definitive crown materials in a controlled laboratory setting. Materials & Methods: Five specimens (15 x 12 x 1.5 mm) were obtained from each tested material: zirconia (Lava Ultimate), lithium disilicate (IPS e.max CAD), lithium silicate reinforced with zirconia (Celtra Duo CAD), dual polymer hybrid ceramic (Vita Enamic) and resin ceramic hybrid (VarseoSmile Crown Plus). Vickers indenter (Wilson VH3100, Buehler) was used to create 6 pyramid-shaped indentations on each specimen and surface hardness was then measured. Results: A statistically significant difference in Vickers Hardness was found between all tested materials. Zirconia has the highest Vickers hardness while VarseoSmile BEGO has the lowest. Celtra Duo has a higher mean microhardness than Emax, yet still lower than Zirconia. Vita Enamic had lower microhardness than both Emax and Zirconia. VarseoSmile BEGO has lower microhardness than both Emax and Zirconia. Conclusion: Vickers Hardness for the tested materials can be classified as follows: Zirconia > Celtra Duo > Emax > Vita Enamic > Varseosmile BEGO."]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Comparison Of Vickers Hardness Between Dental Ceramics And Hybrid Materials"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:creator":["Rameh, Stephanie"],"dc:date.accessioned":["2024-04-30T10:17:46Z"],"dc:date.available":["2024-04-30T10:17:46Z"],"dc:date.issued":["2024-05"],"dc:description":["University of Minnesota M.S. thesis. May 2024. Major: Dentistry. Advisor: Fengyuan Zheng. 1 computer file (PDF); iii, 33 pages."],"dc:description.abstract":["The study aims to compare Vickers hardness of five definitive crown materials in a controlled laboratory setting. Materials & Methods: Five specimens (15 x 12 x 1.5 mm) were obtained from each tested material: zirconia (Lava Ultimate), lithium disilicate (IPS e.max CAD), lithium silicate reinforced with zirconia (Celtra Duo CAD), dual polymer hybrid ceramic (Vita Enamic) and resin ceramic hybrid (VarseoSmile Crown Plus). Vickers indenter (Wilson VH3100, Buehler) was used to create 6 pyramid-shaped indentations on each specimen and surface hardness was then measured. Results: A statistically significant difference in Vickers Hardness was found between all tested materials. Zirconia has the highest Vickers hardness while VarseoSmile BEGO has the lowest. Celtra Duo has a higher mean microhardness than Emax, yet still lower than Zirconia. Vita Enamic had lower microhardness than both Emax and Zirconia. VarseoSmile BEGO has lower microhardness than both Emax and Zirconia. Conclusion: Vickers Hardness for the tested materials can be classified as follows: Zirconia > Celtra Duo > Emax > Vita Enamic > Varseosmile BEGO."],"dc:identifier.uri":["https://hdl.handle.net/11299/262759"],"dc:language.iso":["en"],"dc:subject":["Dental ceramics","Hybrid materials","Vickers hardness"],"dc:title":["Comparison Of Vickers Hardness Between Dental Ceramics And Hybrid Materials"],"dc:type":["Thesis or Dissertation"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T05:19:54Z"}