4.6 Article

Correlation of filler content and elastic properties of resin-composites

期刊

DENTAL MATERIALS
卷 24, 期 7, 页码 932-939

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2007.11.007

关键词

Young's modulus; bulk modulus; shear modulus; Poisson's ratio; nanofillers; nanohybrid; resin-composites; filler volume-fraction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. The aim was to determine the Young's modulus (E), bulk modulus (B), shear modulus (G) and Poisson's ratio (nu) of a series of composite restorative materials and to correlate them with their filler volume-fractions. Methods. Twelve model resin-composite formulations, with systematically varied volume-fraction (Tokuyama), a flowable resin-composite (Point 4 flowable, Kerr) and two hybrid resin-composites (Filtek Supreme XT, 3M-Espe & X-tra Fil, Voco) were investigated. Twelve cylindrical specimens (5 mm x 6 mm) were prepared from each material. Six were free to expand radially under axial compressive loading, and were used to calculate the Young's modulus (E). The other six were radially constricted in a rigid stainless steel ring during loading, from which the bulk modulus (B) was calculated. Compression loading was performed at 1 mm/min. The Young's and bulk moduli were determined using equations of elasticity. Poisson's ratio from nu = 0.5 - (E/6B) and shear modulus from G = E/2(1 + nu). Results. Young's moduli ranged from 2.19 to 7.15 GPa, bulk moduli from 12.79 to 22.43 GPa and shear moduli from 0.74 to 2.47 GPa. Poisson's ratio ranged from 0.45 for the stiffer to 0.47 for the more compliant composites. Statistically significant differences (ANOVA and Bonferroni at p = 0.05) were found depending on filler volume-fraction. Significance. Elastic moduli varied significantly and a positive correlation existed between elastic moduli and filler volume-fraction (r(2) : 0.905-0.992 and 0.940-1.000 for Young's and bulk moduli, respectively). (c) 2007 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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