SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Hacettepe Dişhekimliği Fakültesi Derg.(. Clinical Dentistry and Research) / 2007 / Cilt: 31 - Sayı: 4

Farklı rezin kompozitlerin esneme dayanıklılığı ve elasstisite modülünün karşılaştırılması

A comparison of the flexural strength and modulus of elasticity of different resin composites

Nuray ATTAR
Yonca ÖZEL
Pages
26–35
Publication Date
2022-10-17
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Data was analyzed using ANOVA and Duncan's multiple range tests (p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Introduction: Resin composites have become a popular alternative material to the amalgam restoration in stress-bearing posterior teeth.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: Standard mechanical testing of 25x2x2 mm bar specimens was carried out at 24 hours and 1 month.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Data was analyzed using ANOVA and Duncan's multiple range tests (p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Introduction: Resin composites have become a popular alternative material to the amalgam restoration in stress-bearing posterior teeth. Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the flexural strength and modulus of elasticity of different resin composites' (Admira, Alert, Artemis, Clearfil Photo Posterior, Supreme (Dentin and Body) and TPH). This study also evaluated the influence of aging in water on these properties. Materials and Methods: Standard mechanical testing of 25x2x2 mm bar specimens was carried out at 24 hours and 1 month. Data was analyzed using ANOVA and Duncan's multiple range tests (p

Özet

Rezin kompozitler stres altındaki posterior dişlerde amalgam restorasyonlara popüler alternatif seçenek haline gelmişlerdir. Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı farklı rezin kompozitlerin (Admira, Alert, Artemis, Clearfil Photo Posterior, Supreme (Dentin and Body) and TPH) esneme dayanıklılığı ve elastisite modülünün değerlendirilmesidir. Aynı zamanda bu çalışmada suda bekletmenin bu özelliklere etkileri değerlendirildi. Gereçler ve Yöntemler. 25x2x2mmlik çubuk örneklerin standart mekanik testi 24 saat ve 1 ayda yürütüldü. Sonuçlar ANOVA ve Duncan's Multiple Range Testi ile değerlendirildi (p

🔖

Cite This Article

ATTAR, N., ÖZEL, Y. (2022). Farklı rezin kompozitlerin esneme dayanıklılığı ve elasstisite modülünün karşılaştırılması. Hacettepe Dişhekimliği Fakültesi Derg.(. Clinical Dentistry and Research), Cilt: 31 - Sayı: 4, 26–35. https://ajindex.com/articles/528447

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Lohbauer U, Frankenberger R, Kramer N, Petschelt A. Strength and fatigue performance versus filler fraction of different types of direct dental restoratives. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2006; 76(l):114-120
  2. Atai M, Nekoomanesh M, Hashemi SA, Amani S. Physical and mechanical properties of an experimental dental composite based on a new monomer. Dent Mater. 2004; 20(7):663-668
  3. Lu H, Stansbury JW, Nie J, Berchtold KA, Bowman CN. Development of highly reactive mono-(meth)acrylates as reactive diluents for dimethacrylate-based dental resin systems. Biomaterials. 2005; 26(12):1329-1336
  4. Ikejima I, Nomoto R, McCabe JF. Shear punch strength and flexural strength of model composites with varying filler volume fraction, particle size and silanation. Dent Mater.2003;19(3):206-211
  5. Ruddell DE, Maloney MM, Thompson JY. Effect of novel filler particles on the mechanical and wear properties of dental composites. Dent Mater. 2002; 18(l):72-80
  6. Suzuki S. Does the wear resistance of packable composite equal that of dental amalgam?JEsthetRestorDent.2004;16 (6):355-365;discussion365-7
  7. Leinfelder KF, Bayne SC, Swift EJ Jr. Packable composites: overview and technical considerations. J Esthet Dent. 1999; ll(5):234-49
  8. Jackson RD, Morgan M. The new posterior resins and a simplified placement technique. J Am Dent Assoc. 2000; 131(3):375-383. 9. 3M ESPE. Filtek TM Supreme Universal Restorative System. Technical Product Profile 2003
  9. Hickel R, Dasch W, Janda R, Tyas M, Anusavice K. New direct restorative materials FDI Commission Project. Int Dent J. 1998; 48(1):3-16
  10. Manhart J, Kunzelmann KH, Chen HY, Hickel R. Mechanical properties and wear behavior of light cured packable composite resins. Dent Mater. 2000; 16(l):33-40
  11. Chen HY, Manhart J, Hickel R, Kunzelmann KH. Polymerization contraction stress in light cured packable composite resins. Dent Mater. 2001; 17(3):253-259
  12. Gladys S, Van MB, Braem M, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Comparative physico-mechanical characterization of new hybrid restorative materials with conventional glass- ionomer and resin composite restorative materials. J Dent Res. 1997; 76: 883-894. 14.Roulet JF. The problems associated with substituting composite resins for amalgam: a status report on posterior composites. J Dent.1988; 16(3):101-113
  13. Kohler B, Rasmusson CG, Odman P. A five year clinical evaluation of Class II composite resin restorations. J Dent. 2000;28(2):lll-116
  14. Burke FJ, Wilson NH, Cheung S