Literature DB >> 35864436

Comparison of physical and mechanical properties of three different restorative materials in primary teeth: an in vitro study.

B Keskus1, F Oznurhan2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Physical and mechanical properties of three different (Ketac Molar Easymix, Dyract XP, Cention N (CN)) restoratives with different ingredients were evaluated.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four groups were obtained; Group 1: CN LightCure, Group 2: CN SelfCure, Group 3: Ketac Molar Easymix and Group 4: Dyract XP. Disk-shaped samples (n = 10) were prepared and evaluated for the surface roughness test using a profilometer. For the flexure strength test, 2 × 2 × 25 mm bar-shaped samples (n = 10) were prepared, and a three-point bending test was applied to the samples. After preparing cavities for microleakage tests, teeth were restored with restoratives, immersed in dye, and microleakage was assessed. For the microtensile bond strength (µTBS) test, ten sticks were obtained for each group and were stressed under tension.
RESULTS: According to surface roughness tests, CN SelfCure showed the lowest value (0.13 μm), while Ketac Molar Easymix showed the highest value (0.28 μm), and significant differences were found between the groups. In flexural strength tests, the highest values were seen in CN SelfCure (82.94 MPa), with statistically significant differences between the groups. When CN SelfCure was applied with an adhesive, the teeth showed statistically decreased leakage than other groups on the gingival side. Higher leakage values were seen on the gingival side than the occlusal side in most groups, and the SelfCure groups showed decreased leakage than the LightCure groups. According to µTBS tests, the highest value was obtained in CN SelfCure-Adhesive group, while the lowest was in CN LightCure-Non-adhesive group. When µTBS was evaluated regardless of adhesive use, the SelfCure groups showed higher µTBS values than the LightCure groups. As a result of the µTBS and microleakage test, the difference between the use of CN with and without adhesive, regardless of the polymerization type, was found to be significant (p  < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Cention N showed better properties in SelfCure mode, compared to the rest materials tested, but further in vitro and in vivo studies are needed to investigate the effect of different polymerization modes and the oral environmental conditions.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Alkasite; Flexure strength; Micro-tensile bond strength; Microleakage; Surface roughness

Year:  2022        PMID: 35864436     DOI: 10.1007/s40368-022-00734-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Arch Paediatr Dent        ISSN: 1818-6300


  12 in total

Review 1.  Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature.

Authors:  C M Bollen; P Lambrechts; M Quirynen
Journal:  Dent Mater       Date:  1997-07       Impact factor: 5.304

2.  Flexural strength and modulus of a step-cured resin composite.

Authors:  Erik Asmussen; Anne Peutzfeldt
Journal:  Acta Odontol Scand       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 2.331

3.  Shear bond strength of three different nano-restorative materials to dentin.

Authors:  Yonca Korkmaz; Sevil Gurgan; Esra Firat; Dan Nathanson
Journal:  Oper Dent       Date:  2010 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.440

Review 4.  Detection of microleakage around dental restorations: a review.

Authors:  A H Alani; C G Toh
Journal:  Oper Dent       Date:  1997 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.440

5.  Flexural properties and dentin adhesion in recently developed self-adhesive bulk-fill materials.

Authors:  Philippe François; Anis Remadi; Stéphane Le Goff; Sarah Abdel-Gawad; Jean-Pierre Attal; Elisabeth Dursun
Journal:  J Oral Sci       Date:  2021-02-17       Impact factor: 1.556

6.  Buonocore memorial lecture. Evaluation of clinical performance for posterior composite resins and dentin adhesives.

Authors:  P Lambrechts; M Braem; G Vanherle
Journal:  Oper Dent       Date:  1987       Impact factor: 2.440

7.  Comparative evaluation of microleakage around Class V cavities restored with alkasite restorative material with and without bonding agent and flowable composite resin: An in vitro study.

Authors:  Priyatama Meshram; Vikas Meshram; Devendra Palve; Sanjay Patil; Vandana Gade; Amber Raut
Journal:  Indian J Dent Res       Date:  2019 May-Jun

8.  The evaluation of microleakage and fluoride release of different types of glass ionomer cements.

Authors:  E Bahsi; S Sagmak; B Dayi; O Cellik; Z Akkus
Journal:  Niger J Clin Pract       Date:  2019-07       Impact factor: 0.968

Review 9.  Advances in Nanotechnology for Restorative Dentistry.

Authors:  Zohaib Khurshid; Muhammad Zafar; Saad Qasim; Sana Shahab; Mustafa Naseem; Ammar AbuReqaiba
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2015-02-16       Impact factor: 3.623

10.  Evaluation of surface roughness of different restorative composites after polishing using atomic force microscopy.

Authors:  C Meena Kumari; K Manohar Bhat; Rahul Bansal
Journal:  J Conserv Dent       Date:  2016 Jan-Feb
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.