纳米杂化和块体填充复合材料不同组合的力学和粘结性能。

Beatriz A Ferrari, María M Asueta, Laura G Fusaro, Andrea E Kaplan
{"title":"纳米杂化和块体填充复合材料不同组合的力学和粘结性能。","authors":"Beatriz A Ferrari,&nbsp;María M Asueta,&nbsp;Laura G Fusaro,&nbsp;Andrea E Kaplan","doi":"10.54589/aol.34/3/221","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The aim of this research was to determine compressive and shear bond strength of blocks prepared with bulk-fill and nanofill composite resin combinations. Materials used were Filtek Bulk Fill (FBF) and Z350 (both 3M-ESPE) and Surefil SDR flow (SFF) - Dentsply. To determine shear bond strength, cylindrical specimens 10 mm thick were prepared with composite consisting of thicknesses of 6 mm of one material and 4 mm of the other, in the following combinations: G1: FBF- FBF; G2: Z350-Z350, G3: FBF-Z350, G4: Z350-SFF and G5: SFFSFF. Materials were cured using a 1100 mw/cm2 light for 20 seconds for each layer. Samples were stored for 24 hours at 37 °C in distilled water and shear bond strength was determined. To assess compressive strength, cylindrical samples 4 mm diameter and 6 mm thick consisting of 4 mm + 2 mm were used in the same combinations as described above, stored in distilled water at 37 °C for 24 hours, after which compressive strength was determined. Both tests were performed with a Universal testing machine at a cross head speed of 1 mm/min. Results were analyzed with ANOVA and Tukey's test. Means and standard deviations in MPa for each group were the following: Shear bond strength: G1: 435.87 (65.86), G2: 233.6 (108.15), G3: 279.2 (22.05), G4:449.1 (109.35) and G5: 196.6 (51.16). Compressive strength: G1:160.07(4.27), G2: 149.49 (14.06), G3: 156.10 (29.99), G4: 199-30(39.28), G5: 171.23 (28.71). Evaluation with ANOVA showed no significant differences among combinations for compressive strength (p>0.05) and significant differences for bond strength (p<0.05). Tukey's test showed three homogeneous groups. Under these experimental conditions, it can be concluded that the study combinations have adequate mechanical behavior, equivalent to materials used individually. However, shear bond strength was affected by the combinations analyzed.</p>","PeriodicalId":7033,"journal":{"name":"Acta odontologica latinoamericana : AOL","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/67/3f/1852-4834-34-3-221.PMC10315077.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mechanical and bonding properties of different combinations of nanohybrid and bulk-fill composites.\",\"authors\":\"Beatriz A Ferrari,&nbsp;María M Asueta,&nbsp;Laura G Fusaro,&nbsp;Andrea E Kaplan\",\"doi\":\"10.54589/aol.34/3/221\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The aim of this research was to determine compressive and shear bond strength of blocks prepared with bulk-fill and nanofill composite resin combinations. Materials used were Filtek Bulk Fill (FBF) and Z350 (both 3M-ESPE) and Surefil SDR flow (SFF) - Dentsply. To determine shear bond strength, cylindrical specimens 10 mm thick were prepared with composite consisting of thicknesses of 6 mm of one material and 4 mm of the other, in the following combinations: G1: FBF- FBF; G2: Z350-Z350, G3: FBF-Z350, G4: Z350-SFF and G5: SFFSFF. Materials were cured using a 1100 mw/cm2 light for 20 seconds for each layer. Samples were stored for 24 hours at 37 °C in distilled water and shear bond strength was determined. To assess compressive strength, cylindrical samples 4 mm diameter and 6 mm thick consisting of 4 mm + 2 mm were used in the same combinations as described above, stored in distilled water at 37 °C for 24 hours, after which compressive strength was determined. Both tests were performed with a Universal testing machine at a cross head speed of 1 mm/min. Results were analyzed with ANOVA and Tukey's test. Means and standard deviations in MPa for each group were the following: Shear bond strength: G1: 435.87 (65.86), G2: 233.6 (108.15), G3: 279.2 (22.05), G4:449.1 (109.35) and G5: 196.6 (51.16). Compressive strength: G1:160.07(4.27), G2: 149.49 (14.06), G3: 156.10 (29.99), G4: 199-30(39.28), G5: 171.23 (28.71). Evaluation with ANOVA showed no significant differences among combinations for compressive strength (p>0.05) and significant differences for bond strength (p<0.05). Tukey's test showed three homogeneous groups. Under these experimental conditions, it can be concluded that the study combinations have adequate mechanical behavior, equivalent to materials used individually. However, shear bond strength was affected by the combinations analyzed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7033,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta odontologica latinoamericana : AOL\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/67/3f/1852-4834-34-3-221.PMC10315077.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta odontologica latinoamericana : AOL\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.54589/aol.34/3/221\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta odontologica latinoamericana : AOL","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54589/aol.34/3/221","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究的目的是确定块体填充和纳米填充复合树脂组合制备的块体的抗压和剪切粘结强度。使用的材料是Filtek Bulk Fill (FBF)和Z350(均为3M-ESPE)和Surefil SDR flow (SFF) - Dentsply。为测定抗剪粘结强度,采用一种材料厚度为6mm,另一种材料厚度为4mm的复合材料制备10 mm厚的圆柱形试样,组合方式如下:G1: FBF- FBF;G2: Z350-Z350, G3: FBF-Z350, G4: Z350-SFF, G5: SFFSFF。使用1100 mw/cm2的光固化材料,每层固化20秒。样品在37℃蒸馏水中保存24小时,测定剪切粘结强度。为了评估抗压强度,将直径为4mm,厚度为6mm,由4mm + 2mm组成的圆柱形样品以上述相同的组合使用,在37°C的蒸馏水中保存24小时,然后测定抗压强度。两项试验均在通用试验机上进行,十字头速度为1 mm/min。结果采用方差分析和Tukey检验进行分析。各组MPa均值和标准差分别为:G1: 435.87 (65.86), G2: 233.6 (108.15), G3: 279.2 (22.05), G4:449.1 (109.35), G5: 196.6(51.16)。抗压强度:G1:160.07(4.27), G2: 149.49 (14.06), G3: 156.10 (29.99), G4: 199-30(39.28), G5: 171.23(28.71)。方差分析结果显示,组合抗压强度差异无统计学意义(p>0.05),粘结强度差异有统计学意义(p>0.05)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Mechanical and bonding properties of different combinations of nanohybrid and bulk-fill composites.

The aim of this research was to determine compressive and shear bond strength of blocks prepared with bulk-fill and nanofill composite resin combinations. Materials used were Filtek Bulk Fill (FBF) and Z350 (both 3M-ESPE) and Surefil SDR flow (SFF) - Dentsply. To determine shear bond strength, cylindrical specimens 10 mm thick were prepared with composite consisting of thicknesses of 6 mm of one material and 4 mm of the other, in the following combinations: G1: FBF- FBF; G2: Z350-Z350, G3: FBF-Z350, G4: Z350-SFF and G5: SFFSFF. Materials were cured using a 1100 mw/cm2 light for 20 seconds for each layer. Samples were stored for 24 hours at 37 °C in distilled water and shear bond strength was determined. To assess compressive strength, cylindrical samples 4 mm diameter and 6 mm thick consisting of 4 mm + 2 mm were used in the same combinations as described above, stored in distilled water at 37 °C for 24 hours, after which compressive strength was determined. Both tests were performed with a Universal testing machine at a cross head speed of 1 mm/min. Results were analyzed with ANOVA and Tukey's test. Means and standard deviations in MPa for each group were the following: Shear bond strength: G1: 435.87 (65.86), G2: 233.6 (108.15), G3: 279.2 (22.05), G4:449.1 (109.35) and G5: 196.6 (51.16). Compressive strength: G1:160.07(4.27), G2: 149.49 (14.06), G3: 156.10 (29.99), G4: 199-30(39.28), G5: 171.23 (28.71). Evaluation with ANOVA showed no significant differences among combinations for compressive strength (p>0.05) and significant differences for bond strength (p<0.05). Tukey's test showed three homogeneous groups. Under these experimental conditions, it can be concluded that the study combinations have adequate mechanical behavior, equivalent to materials used individually. However, shear bond strength was affected by the combinations analyzed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Update on the treatment of chemotherapy and radiotherapy-induced buccal mucositis: a systematic review. Clinical and microbiological assessment in a subpopulation of young Argentine patients with severe periodontitis. Postoperative pain after third molar extraction surgery in patients with and without bruxism: an observational study. Effect of photopolymerization time on the microhardness of resin cement beneath feldspathic ceramic. The potential of salivary albumin to degrade composite resin.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1