SavedAdd your journal

Journals / The International Journal of Energy and Engineering Sciences / 2016 / Cilt: 1 - Sayı: 1

WEAR PROPERTIES OF NANOFILLED AND MICROFILLED COMPOSITE RESTORARIVE MATERIALS

Efe Çetin YILMAZ
Recep SADELER
Pages
16–22
Publication Date
2016-01-01
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)

However, this study isn’t correlations linear between filler volume values and two body wear resistance

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the two-body wear resistance of nanofilled (3M ESPE Filtek Silorane ) and microfilled (3M ESPE Filtek Z250) composite restorative materials.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Eight standardized disc shape specimens (6mm diameter X 8mm height) were prepared from two composite materials.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:However, this study isn’t correlations linear between filler volume values and two body wear resistance
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Two-body Wear · Composite Restorative Materials · Chewing Simulation

Abstract

The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the two-body wear resistance of nanofilled (3M ESPE Filtek Silorane ) and microfilled (3M ESPE Filtek Z250) composite restorative materials. Eight standardized disc shape specimens (6mm diameter X 8mm height) were prepared from two composite materials. Specimens were subjected to chewing simulation using a chewing simulator (F=49N (vertical 6 mm, horizontal 2 mm) 2,4 X 105 cycles and frequency 1,6 Hz) and simultaneous thermal cycling (3000 cycles, 5°C/55°C, 1min/cycle). AL2O3 balls were used as antagonists for every experiment chewing cycle. Mean volume loss values were determined using 3D laser scanning device. Mean values and standard deviations were calculated and statistical analysis was performed using one-way Anova and Tukey’s test (α=,05). Vicker hardness values for Filtek Z250 (about 69HV) and for Filtek Silorane (about 45HV) were measured. Mean volume loss of Filtek Z250 (3,8µm3 p=.021) is measured to be lower than Filtek Silorane (5,9µm3 p=.017). In this study, suggested the excellent two body wear behaviour of the microfilled Filtek Z250. However, this study isn’t correlations linear between filler volume values and two body wear resistance

🔖

Cite This Article

YILMAZ, E. Ç., SADELER, R. (2016). WEAR PROPERTIES OF NANOFILLED AND MICROFILLED COMPOSITE RESTORARIVE MATERIALS. The International Journal of Energy and Engineering Sciences, Cilt: 1 - Sayı: 1, 16–22. https://ajindex.com/articles/806024

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (5)

  1. Bicer, A. Z. Y., Karakis, D., Dogan, A., & Mert, F. (2015). A comparison of wear rate of direct and indirect resin composites: A two-body wear abrasion test. Journal of Composite Materials, 49(21), 2599-2607. doi:10.1177/0021998314550845. Cao, L. Q., Zhao, X. Y., Gong, X., & Zhao, S. L. (2013). An in vitro investigation of wear resistance and hardness of composite resins. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, 6(6), 423-430.
  2. Christensen, G. J. (2007). Remaining challenges with Class II resin-based composite restorations. Journal of the American Dental Association, 138(11), 1487- 1489. Condon, J. R., & Ferracane, J. L. (1996). Evaluation of composite wear with a new multi-mode oral wear simulator. Dental Materials, 12(4), 218-226. doi:Doi 10.1016/S0109-5641(96)80026-1.
  3. Condon, J. R., & Ferracane, J. L. (1997). In vitro wear of composite with varied cure, filler level, and filler treatment. Journal of Dental Research, 76(7), 1405-1411.
  4. DeLong, R., Pintado, M. R., Douglas, W. H., Fok, A. S., Wilder, A. D., Swift, E. J., & Bayne, S. C. (2012). Wear of a dental composite in an artificial oral environment: A clinical correlation. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B-Applied Biomaterials, 100b(8), 2297-2306. doi:10.1002/jbm.b.32801. Harsha, A. P., & Tewari, U. S. (2003). Two-body and three-body abrasive wear behaviour of polyaryletherketone composites. Polymer Testing, 22(4), 403-418. doi:10.1016/S0142-9418(02)00121-6.
  5. Heintze, S. D. (2006). How to qualify and validate wear simulation devices and methods. Dental Materials, 22(8), 712-734. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2006.02.002. Heintze, S. D., Zellweger, G., Cavalleri, A., & Ferracane, J. (2006). Influence of the antagonist material on the wear of different composites using two different wear simulation methods. Dental Materials, 22(2), 166-175. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2005.04.012. Heintze, S. D., Zellweger, G., & Zappini, G. (2007). The relationship between physical parameters and wear of dental composites. Wear, 263, 1138-1146. doi:10.1016/j.wear.2006.12.010. Hu, X., Shortall, A. C., & Marquis, P. M. (2002). Wear of three dental composites under different testing conditions. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, 29(8), 756-764. doi:DOI 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2002.00878.x. Johansson, A., Haraldson, T., Omar, R., Kiliaridis, S., & Carlsson, G. E. (1993). An Investigation of Some Factors Associated with Occlusal Tooth Wear in a Selected High-Wear Sample. Scandinavian Journal of Dental Research, 101(