People | Locations | Statistics |
---|---|---|
Naji, M. |
| |
Motta, Antonella |
| |
Aletan, Dirar |
| |
Mohamed, Tarek |
| |
Ertürk, Emre |
| |
Taccardi, Nicola |
| |
Kononenko, Denys |
| |
Petrov, R. H. | Madrid |
|
Alshaaer, Mazen | Brussels |
|
Bih, L. |
| |
Casati, R. |
| |
Muller, Hermance |
| |
Kočí, Jan | Prague |
|
Šuljagić, Marija |
| |
Kalteremidou, Kalliopi-Artemi | Brussels |
|
Azam, Siraj |
| |
Ospanova, Alyiya |
| |
Blanpain, Bart |
| |
Ali, M. A. |
| |
Popa, V. |
| |
Rančić, M. |
| |
Ollier, Nadège |
| |
Azevedo, Nuno Monteiro |
| |
Landes, Michael |
| |
Rignanese, Gian-Marco |
|
Geraldeli, S.
in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%
Topics
Publications (2/2 displayed)
Places of action
Organizations | Location | People |
---|
article
Extensive Assessment of the Physical, Mechanical, and Adhesion Behavior of a Low-viscosity Bulk Fill Composite and a Traditional Resin Composite in Tooth Cavities.
Abstract
<h4>Objectives</h4>To compare the degree of conversion (DC), depth of polymerization (DP), shrinkage stress (SS), flexural strength (FS), elastic modulus (EM), and bond strength (BS) of a low-viscosity bulk fill resin composite and a paste-like traditional composite.<h4>Methods</h4>Tetric Evo-Flow Bulk Fill (TBF) and Empress Direct (ED; Ivoclar Vivadent) composites were used. DC (%) and FS/EM (MPa/GPa) were evaluated in bar specimens (7×2×1 mm; n=10) using Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy and a three-point bending test in a universal testing machine (UTM), respectively. For DP and BS tests, conical cavities (n=10) were prepared in bovine dentin and restored with the composites. DP was analyzed by calculating the bottom-to-top surface microhardness ratio (BTHR), and BS (MPa) was determined by push-out testing in the UTM. SS (MPa) was measured for one increment of TBF and two increments of ED in a UTM attached to an extensometer (n=5). Data were analyzed using Student t-test and analysis of variance (α=0.05).<h4>Results</h4>TBF presented higher values than ED for DC (85.7±6.6% vs 54.2±4.9%) and BS (0.95±0.70 MPa vs 0.35±0.15 MPa). TBF values were lower than ED values for FS (76.6±16.8 MPa vs 144.9±24.1 MPa) and maximum SS (0.77±0.07 MPa vs 1.07±0.15 MPa). TBF and ED values were similar for BTHR (0.83±0.16 vs 0.84±0.08) and EM (11.5±2.8 GPa vs 12.5±2.6 GPa).<h4>Conclusions</h4>The physical and mechanical properties of TBF, a bulk fill resin composite, were similar or superior to those of ED, a conventional composite, with the exception of FS measurements.