SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Hacettepe Dişhekimliği Fakültesi Derg.(. Clinical Dentistry and Research) / 2006 / Cilt: 30 - Sayı: 1

Kondanse edilebilen ve hibrit kompozit rezinlerin esneme dayanıklılığı ve elastisite modlünün karşılaştırılması

A comparison of the flexural strength and elastic modulus of condensable and hybrid composite resins

Nuray ATTAR
Yalçın ÇİFTÇİ
Pages
42–50
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)

Statistical analyses were performed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Duncan's Multiple Range tests (p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: Condensable composites have been used widely for posterior applications since their introduction.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The aim of this study was to compare the flexural strength and elastic modulus of four condensable composite resins (Filtek P-60, Pyramid Dentin, Solitaire 2, SureFil) and three hybrid composite resins (Charisma, InTen-S, Tetric Ceram).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Statistical analyses were performed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Duncan's Multiple Range tests (p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: Condensable composites have been used widely for posterior applications since their introduction. The aim of this study was to compare the flexural strength and elastic modulus of four condensable composite resins (Filtek P-60, Pyramid Dentin, Solitaire 2, SureFil) and three hybrid composite resins (Charisma, InTen-S, Tetric Ceram). Materials and Methods: The resins were placed in a mold measuring 25mm length, 2 mm width and 2 mm thickness (n =10). The samples were prepared and tested according to ISO specifications 4049. Flexural strength and modulus of elasticity were determined at 24 hours and nine months later. The center of the bar was subjected to a compressive load at a rate of 1 mm/min. Statistical analyses were performed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Duncan's Multiple Range tests (p

Özet

Amaç: Kondanse edilebilen kompozitler ilk tanıtımlarından bu yana posterior uygulamalarda yaygın olarak kullanılmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı 4 kondanse edilebilen kompozit (Filtek P-60, Pyramid Dentin, Solitaire 2, SureFil) ve 3 hibrit kompozitin (Charisma, IntenS, TetricCeram) esneme dayanıklılığı ve elastisite modülünü karşılaştırmaktır. Materyal ve Metod: Rezin materyaller 25 mm uzunluğunda, 2 mm genişliğinde ve 2 mm kalınlığındaki kalıplara yerleştirildi (n=10). Örneklerin hazırlanması ve test ISO 4049 standartlarına uygun olarak gerçekleştirildi. Esneme dayanıklılığı ve elastisite modülleri 24 saat ve 9 ay sonunda belirlendi. Örneklere 1 mm/dakika sabit hızda yükleme kuvveti uygulandı. Veriler istatistiksel olarak Varyans analizi (ANOVA) ve Duncan's multiple range testleri ile analiz edildi (p

🔖

Cite This Article

ATTAR, N., ÇİFTÇİ, Y. (2022). Kondanse edilebilen ve hibrit kompozit rezinlerin esneme dayanıklılığı ve elastisite modlünün karşılaştırılması. Hacettepe Dişhekimliği Fakültesi Derg.(. Clinical Dentistry and Research), Cilt: 30 - Sayı: 1, 42–50. https://ajindex.com/articles/528508

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Payne JH. The marginal seal of class II restorations: flowable composite resin compared to injectable glass ionomer. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 1999; 23:123-130
  2. Kelsey WP, Latta MA, Shaddy RS & Stanislav CM. Physical properties of three packable resin-composite restorative materials. Oper Dent. 2000; 25: 331-335
  3. Manhart J, Chen HY, Hickel R. The suitability of packable resin-based composites for posterior restorations. J Am Dent Assoc. 2001; 132:639-645
  4. Leinfelder KF, Sluder TB, Santos JF, Wall JT. Five-year clinical evaluation of anterior and posterior restorations of composite resin. Oper Dent. 1980, 5: 57-65
  5. Bayne SC, Thompson JY, Swift EJ, Stamatiades P, Wilkerson M.A characterization of first-generation flowable composites. J Am Dent Assoc. 1998; 129: 567-577
  6. Leinfelder KF, Radz GM & Nash RW. A report on a new condensable composite resin Compend Contin Educ Dent. 1998; 19: 230-37
  7. Estafan D, Dussetschleger FL, Miuo LE, Kondamani J. Class V lesions restored with flowable composite and added surface sealing resin. Gen Dent. 2000; 48(1): 78-80
  8. Attar N, Tam LE & McComb D. Flow, strength, stiffness and radiopacity of flowable resin composites J Canad Dent Assoc. 2003; (8): 516-521
  9. Attar N, Turgut MD, Güngör HC. The effect of flowable resin composites as gingival increments on the microleakage of posterior resin composites. Oper Dent. 2004; 29(2): 162-167
  10. Leinfelder KF. Posterior composite resins: the materials and their clinical performance. J Am Dent Assoc. 1995; 126: 663-676
  11. Perry R, Kugel G, Leinfelder K. One year clinical evaluation of SureFil pack able composite. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 1999; 20: 544-53
  12. Li Y, Swartz ML, Phillips RW, Moore BK, Roberts TA. Effect of filler content and on properties of composites. J Dent Res. 1985; 64: 1396-1401
  13. Chung KH, Greener EH. Correlation between degree of conversion, filler concentration and mechanical properties of posterior composite resins. J Oral Rehabil. 1990; 7: 487-494
  14. Manhart J, Kunzelmann KH, Chen HY, Hickel R. Mechanical properties and wear behavior of light- cured packable composite resins. Dent Mater. 2000; 16:33-40
  15. Cobb DS, Macgregor KM, Vargas MA, Denehy GE. The physical properties of packable and conventional posterior resin-based composites: A comparison. J Am Dent Assoc. 2000;131:1610-1615
  16. Jackson RD, Morgan M. the new posterior resins and a simplified placement technique. J Am Dent Assoc. 2000; 131: 375-383
  17. Lohbauer U, Von Der