Biodegradation and Abrasive Wear of Nano Restorative Materials

Paula, Andréia Bolzan de; Fucio, S B P; Alonso, Roberta Caroline Bruschi; Sardi, Janaína de Cássia Orlandi; Puppin‐Rontani, Regina Maria

doi:10.2341/10-221-l

Cited by 43 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…11 In this current study, these characteristics contributed to the abrasion resistance of Ketac N100, which was not statistically significantly different from that of the nanocomposite (Table 2). Similar results were found by de Paula and others, 17 in whose study the surface roughness of Ketac N100 did not differ from that of a nanocomposite after biomechanical degradation. However, the larger and irregular filler particles present in Vitremer and Fuji IX GP ( Figure 1C,F) made it easier to ''pluck out'' a whole filler particle from the resin matrix, which could act as an additional abrasive agent once it has detached from the surface and is held against the specimen.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

“…15,16 Laboratory studies assess the surface integrity of restorative materials using mechanical degradation tests, such as wear simulation and brushing abrasion, which evaluate the surface texture and wear/ abrasion resistance of materials. [17][18][19][20] Corrosive wear or mechanical degradation results from the joint action of chemical and mechanical forces and is also associated with the mechanical removal of corroded layers that form on the surface of a material through a reaction with its environment. 21 However, it is also important to determine how the surface of restorative materials performs as a consequence of the chemical degradation that also occurs in the oral cavity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effect of Chemical and Mechanical Degradation on Surface Roughness of Three Glass Ionomers and a Nanofilled Resin Composite

Carvalho¹,

Sampaio²,

Fucio³

et al. 2012

Operative Dentistry

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The nanofilled glass ionomer provides intermediate resistance to chemical and mechanical degradation among the glass ionomer cements (conventional and resin-modified) and nanofilled composite. SUMMARYNanofillers have been incorporated into glass ionomer (GI) restorative materials to improve their mechanical and surface properties. The aim of this present laboratory study was to compare the superficial roughness (Ra) of nanofilled GI (Ketac N100) with that of conventional GI (Fuji IX GP), resin-modified GI (Vitremer), and a nanofilled resin composite (Filtek Supreme) after pH cycling and toothbrush abrasion. Ten specimens of each material were made using Teflon molds, which were polished using aluminum-oxide abrasive disks. Three measurements of Ra were made of each specimen to serve as baseline values. The specimens were submitted to pH cycling for 10 days in a demineralization solution for six

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Chemical and Mechanical Degradation on Surface Roughness of Three Glass Ionomers and a Nanofilled Resin Composite

Carvalho¹,

Sampaio²,

Fucio³

et al. 2012

Operative Dentistry

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…56, No. 1, [11][12][13][14][15][16]2014 Original Physicomechanical properties of a zinc-reinforced glass ionomer restorative material material (ChemFil Rock, Dentsply Caulk) was recently introduced to improve flexural strength (6), hardness, wear resistance, and fracture toughness. However, few studies have evaluated these properties.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Physicomechanical properties of a zinc-reinforced glass ionomer restorative material

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We compared a zinc-reinforced glass ionomer restorative material (ChemFil Rock) with three commercially available glass ionomer cements (GICs), namely, Fuji IX GP Extra, Ketac Molar Quick Aplicap, and EQUIA Fil, with respect to fracture toughness, microhardness, roughness, and abrasive wear. Fracture toughness (K IC ) was tested according to ISO 13586 (n = 10). Hardness, roughness, and abrasive wear were also tested (n = 9). Data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test with adjustment for multiple comparisons (α = 0.05). As compared with the other GICs ChemFil Rock exhibited a greater increase in surface roughness (P < 0.05) and lower microhardness (P < 0.01). The wear resistance of ChemFil Rock was comparable to that of the other GICs (P > 0.05). ChemFil Rock had significantly lower fracture toughness as compared with EQUIA Fil (P = 0.01) and significantly higher fracture toughness as compared with the other GICs (P < 0.02). In conclusion, as compared with the three other commercially available GICs, ChemFil Rock had intermediate fracture toughness, the lowest microhardness, and the greatest change in surface roughness. (J Oral Sci 56, 11-16, 2014)

show abstract

“…Previous studies showed a direct correlation between the size of the filler and the amount of material loss [5,6]. The shape of the fillers can also influence the resistance of the composite resin to abrasive challenge.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of erosion and abrasion on surface properties of composite resin

Stoleriu

Andrian

Pancu

et al. 2016

IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

View the article online for updates and enhancements. Related contentComputer Simulation of Stress-Strain State of Pipeline Section Affected by Abrasion Due to Mechanical Impurities P V Burkov, R G Afanas'ev and S P Burkova -Fatigue variation of surface properties of silumin subjected to electron-beam treatment S V Konovalov, K V Aksenova, V E Gromov et al. Abstract. The aim of the study was to evaluate the surface roughness of two commercial composite resins submitted to erosive attack, to abrasive wear and to association of erosive and abrasive challenge. Standardized samples of G-aenial anterior (GC Company) and Essentia (GC Company) composite resins were randomly split in 6 groups. In group 1 the samples were maintained in artificial saliva until the evaluation of surface roughness. In group 2 the samples were submitted only to erosive attack, in group 3 only to abrasive challenge and in groups 4 ,5, and 6 the erosive attack was followed by abrasive challenge immediately (group 4), 30 minutes after the erosive attack (group 5) and one hour after the erosive attack (group 6). The specimens were evaluated using surface roughness measuring tester SJ-210 (Mitutoyo Corporation, Japan) and the mean surface roughness values (Ra, µm) of each specimen were registered. A significantly increase of both composite resins surface roughness was recorded after erosive attack and abrasive challenge. Toothbrushing 60 minutes after acidic contact determined no significant differences in surface roughness of composite resins.

show abstract

Biodegradation and Abrasive Wear of Nano Restorative Materials

Abstract: Clinical Relevance Some nanofilled restorative materials may provide superior resistance to biomechanical degradation.

Cited by 43 publications

References 31 publications

Effect of Chemical and Mechanical Degradation on Surface Roughness of Three Glass Ionomers and a Nanofilled Resin Composite

Effect of Chemical and Mechanical Degradation on Surface Roughness of Three Glass Ionomers and a Nanofilled Resin Composite

Physicomechanical properties of a zinc-reinforced glass ionomer restorative material

The effect of erosion and abrasion on surface properties of composite resin

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About