| 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 |
|
Saraiva, J.
in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%
Topics
Publications (7/7 displayed)
- 2022Effect of Different Cavity Disinfectants on Adhesion to Dentin of Permanent Teethcitations
- 2021Effect of Cavity Disinfectants on Adhesion to Primary Teeth-A Systematic Reviewcitations
- 2021Mechanical Characterization of Two Dental Restorative Materials after Acidic Challengecitations
- 2021The Influence of Irrigation during the Finishing and Polishing of Composite Resin Restorations-A Systematic Review of In Vitro Studiescitations
- 2021Mechanical and Tribological Characterization of a Bioactive Composite Resincitations
- 2021Aesthetic restoration of posterior teeth using different occlusal matrix techniquescitations
- 2020Mechanical and Tribological Characterization of a Dental Ceromercitations
Places of action
| Organizations | Location | People |
|---|
article
Mechanical and Tribological Characterization of a Bioactive Composite Resin
Abstract
Despite developments and advances in dental materials which allow for greater restorative performance, there are still challenges and questions regarding the formulation of new compositions and chemical reactions of materials used in restorative dentistry. The aim of this study was to assess and compare the mechanical and tribological characteristics of a bioactive resin, a composite resin, and a glass ionomer. Twenty specimens of each material were divided into two groups: one control group (n = 10), not subjected to thermocycling, and one test group (n = 10) submitted to thermocycling. The Vickers microhardness test was carried out and surface roughness was evaluated. The tribological sliding indentation test was chosen. The bioactive resin had the lowest hardness, followed by the composite resin, and the glass ionomer. The bioactive resin also showed greater resistance to fracture. For the tribological test, the wear rate was lower for the bioactive resin, followed by the composite resin, and the glass ionomer. The bioactive resin presented a smooth surface without visible cracks, while the other materials presented a brittle peeling of great portions of material. Thus, the bioactive resin performs better in relation to fracture toughness, wear rate and impact absorption than the composite resin and much better than the glass ionomer.