-
Physicochemical characterization of two bulk fill composites at different depths
-
Guillermo Grazioli, Carlos Enrique Cuevas-Suárez, Leina Nakanishi, Alejandro Francia, Rafael Ratto de Moraes
-
Restor Dent Endod 2021;46(3):e39. Published online July 5, 2021
-
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2021.46.e39
-
-
Abstract
PDFPubReaderePub
- Objectives
This study analyzed the physical-chemical behavior of 2 bulk fill resin composites (BFCs; Filtek Bulk Fill [FBF], and Tetric-N-Ceram Bulk Fill [TBF]) used in 2- and 4-mm increments and compared them with a conventional resin composite (Filtek Z250). Materials and MethodsFlexural strength and elastic modulus were evaluated by using a 3-point bending test. Knoop hardness was measured at depth areas 0–1, 1–2, 2–3, and 3–4 mm. The translucency parameter was measured using an optical spectrophotometer. Real-time polymerization kinetics was analyzed using Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. ResultsFlexural strength was similar among the materials, while TBF showed lower elastic modulus (Z250: 6.6 ± 1.3, FBF: 6.4 ± 0.9, TBF: 4.3 ± 1.3). The hardness of Z250 was similar only between 0–1 mm and 1–2 mm. Both BFCs had similar hardness until 2–3 mm, and showed significant decreases at 3–4 mm (FBF: 33.45 ± 1.95 at 0–1 mm to 23.19 ± 4.32 at 3–4 mm, TBF: 23.17 ± 2.51 at 0–1 mm to 15.11 ± 1.94 at 3–4 mm). The BFCs showed higher translucency than Z250. The polymerization kinetics of all the materials were similar at 2-mm increments. At 4-mm, only TBF had a similar degree of conversion compared with 2 mm. ConclusionsThe BFCs tested had similar performance compared to the conventional composite when used in up to 2-mm increments. When the increment was thicker, the BFCs were properly polymerized only up to 3 mm.
-
15
View
-
1
Download
-
5
Web of Science
-
Bond strength of self-adhesive resin cements to composite submitted to different surface pretreatments
-
Victor Hugo dos Santos, Sandro Griza, Rafael Ratto de Moraes, André Luis Faria-e-Silva
-
Restor Dent Endod 2014;39(1):12-16. Published online January 20, 2014
-
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2014.39.1.12
-
-
Abstract
PDFPubReaderePub
- Objectives
Extensively destroyed teeth are commonly restored with composite resin before cavity preparation for indirect restorations. The longevity of the restoration can be related to the proper bonding of the resin cement to the composite. This study aimed to evaluate the microshear bond strength of two self-adhesive resin cements to composite resin. Materials and MethodsComposite discs were subject to one of six different surface pretreatments: none (control), 35% phosphoric acid etching for 30 seconds (PA), application of silane (silane), PA + silane, PA + adhesive, or PA + silane + adhesive (n = 6). A silicone mold containing a cylindrical orifice (1 mm2 diameter) was placed over the composite resin. RelyX Unicem (3M ESPE) or BisCem (Bisco Inc.) self-adhesive resin cement was inserted into the orifices and light-cured. Self-adhesive cement cylinders were submitted to shear loading. Data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (p < 0.05). ResultsIndependent of the cement used, the PA + Silane + Adhesive group showed higher microshear bond strength than those of the PA and PA + Silane groups. There was no difference among the other treatments. Unicem presented higher bond strength than BisCem for all experimental conditions. ConclusionsPretreatments of the composite resin surface might have an effect on the bond strength of self-adhesive resin cements to this substrate.
|