3.8 Article

Impact of dietary solvents on flexural properties of bulk-fill composites

期刊

SAUDI DENTAL JOURNAL
卷 30, 期 3, 页码 232-239

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2018.04.002

关键词

Composites; Dental materials; Dietary solvents; Flexural properties; Giomers

资金

  1. research grant Faculty of Dentistry, University of Malaya [PG320-2016A]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: This study investigated the effect of dietary solvents on flexural strength and modulus of bulk-fill composites. Materials and methods: One conventional composite (Filtek Z350 [FZ]), two bulk-fill composites (Filtek Bulk-fill [FB] and Tetric N Ceram [TN]) and a bulk-fill giomer (Beautifil-Bulk Restorative [BB]) were evaluated. Specimens (12 x 2 x 2 mm) were fabricated using customized stainless steel molds. Specimens were light-cured, removed from their molds, finished, measured and randomly divided into six groups. The groups (n = 10) were conditioned in the following mediums for 7 days at 37 degrees C: air (control), artificial saliva (SAGF), distilled water, 0.02 N citric acid, heptane, 50% ethanol-water solution. After conditioning, the specimens were rinsed, blotted dry, measured and subjected to flexural testing using a universal testing machine. Representative SEM images of the intact surfaces were obtained to appraise the degradation mechanism by dietary solvents. Data was subjected to statistical analysis using ANOVA/Tukey's tests at significance level p < 0.05. Results: Significant differences in flexural properties were observed between materials and conditioning mediums. The highest flexural properties were usually obtained with conditioning in air (control) or heptane. Exposure to aqueous solutions generally reduced flexural properties of bulk-fill composites. Conclusion: The effect of dietary solvents on flexural properties of bulk-fill composites was material and medium dependent. (C) 2018 The Authors. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of King Saud University.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据