Effect of Beverages on Viscoelastic Properties of Resin-Based Dental Composites

Kaleem, Muhammad; Khan, Abdul Samad; Rehman, Ihtesham Ur; Wong, F.S.L.

doi:10.3390/ma8062863

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The presence of triethylene glycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA) can be another reason of better wear resistance as it enhances the filler-matrix interaction and improves polymerization which reduces the effect of water sorption. [ 20 21 ] TEGDMA has a polyether backbone that increase its flexibility,[ 22 ] and this may allow better molecular interaction and hence better polymerization. This results in increased degree of conversion reducing sorption and making the structure stiffer.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative abrasive wear resistance and surface analysis of dental resin-based materials

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective:The objective of this study was to assess the surface properties (microhardness and wear resistance) of various composites and compomer materials. In addition, the methodologies used for assessing wear resistance were compared.Materials and Methods:This study was conducted using restorative material (Filtek Z250, Filtek Z350, QuiXfil, SureFil SDR, and Dyract XP) to assess wear resistance. A custom-made toothbrush simulator was employed for wear testing. Before and after wear resistance, structural, surface, and physical properties were assessed using various techniques.Results:Structural changes and mass loss were observed after treatment, whereas no significant difference in terms of microhardness was observed. The correlation between atomic force microscopy (AFM) and profilometer and between wear resistance and filler volume was highly significant. The correlation between wear resistance and microhardness were insignificant.Conclusions:The AFM presented higher precision compared to optical profilometers at a nanoscale level, but both methods can be used in tandem for a more detailed and precise roughness analysis.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative abrasive wear resistance and surface analysis of dental resin-based materials

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Clinically, resin composite restorations are exposed to temperature changes, chemical agents that are found in saliva, food, and beverages [ 7 ]. It has been reported previously [ 8 , 9 ] that chemical agents in food and beverages can reduce surface hardness of enamel, dentine, microfilled composite, resin modified glass ionomer, and also affect the viscoelastic properties. The reduction in surface hardness of microfilled composites may lead to some dimensional changes, including creep deformation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Simultaneous Evaluation of Creep Deformation and Recovery of Bulk-Fill Dental Composites Immersed in Food-Simulating Liquids

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study is to compare the creep/recovery behavior of bulk-fill dental composites after storage in various food simulating organic solvents. For this purpose, five different resin-composites (four bulk-fills and one conventional) were used. A total of 20 rectangular specimens (14 mm × 3 mm × 0.7 mm) were prepared by filling the resin-composites in Teflon mold. All of the specimens for each material (n = 5) were divided into four groups namely dry (control), distilled water (DW), artificial saliva, and absolute ethanol. The specimens were subjected to three-point bending creep test during immersion directly. A constant load of 2 N was used for each specimen with loading and unloading time 2 h each. Results: SF2 and XF showed a lower creep strain % after immersion, ranging from 0.44 (dry) to 0.75 (saliva) and 0.43 (dry) to 0.80 (ethanol), respectively. TNC BF depicts the maximum creep strain % ranging from 1.24% (dry) to 2.87% (ethanol) followed by FBF ranging from 1.17 (dry) to 2.59 (ethanol). However, the conventional material (GR) showed lower creep strain after immersion ranging from 0.28 to 0.54. Moreover, SF2 resulted in the highest creep recovery in all of the composites groups, as well as conventional material. The other composite groups showed lower creep recovery as compared to the conventional material (GR). The creep strain % for all the bulk-fill composites materials were increased during immersion in the liquids. However, for the conventional material, the creep deformation is decreased after immersion. SF2 showed the highest percentage of creep recovery among the bulk-fill composites, followed by XF.

show abstract

“…The increased filler volume and improved bonding between the filler and matrix component may be the cause of the improved wear resistance. Triethylene glycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA) can also improve wear resistance because it improves the interaction between the filler and matrix and the polymerization process, which lessens the impact of water sorption 21 . The polyether backbone of TEGDMA makes it more flexible, which may enable greater molecular interaction and, consequently, better polymerization.…”

Section: Discussion: Abrasive Resistance Testmentioning

confidence: 99%

Abrasive resistance and microhardness of self-adhesive (Surefil one) and conventional bulk fill composites: An- in vitro study.

Ibrahim,

Selivany,

Ali

2023

EDJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims and objectives: To evaluate abrasive resistance and microhardness of self-adhesive Surefil one and conventional bulkfill composites Beautifil bulk restorative and Filtek one bulk fill restorative. Materials and Methods: For the abrasive resistance test, thirty composite discs (4 mm hieght×8 mm width) in each group (n=10) were fabricated. GI: Beautifil bulk restorative, GII: Filtek One Bulk fill restorative and GIII: Surefil one self-adhesive. By placing the material in a mold in a single increment then curing. A custom-made toothbrush simulator was employed for wear testing. The samples weighted before and after the brushing to measure the weight loss. For the microhardness test, thirty cylindrical specimens (6 mm× 8 mm) (n= 10) were fabricated to assess the microhardness, top and bottom surfaces were tested using Vicker Hardness test. The results were analyized with a one-way ANOVA test, the post-hoc comparisons were examined in Tukey test. Results: Abrasive Resistance results, Surefil one (9.52gr) and Beautifil bulk (4.16gr) showed an increase in weight after brushing, while Filtek one bulkfill (-0.85gr) showed a decrease in weight.Microhardness test results, Beautifil bulk showed the highest number of VH (74.83) followed by Surefil one (70.61) and Filtek one bulkfill (62.95). Conclusion: Beautifil bulk was more resistant to abrasion in comparison to Surefil one self-adhesive and One bulk fill. The great weight loss was observed in One bulk fill. Great weight gain was observed in Surefil one self-adhesive. Beautifil bulk showed the highest VH number compare to Surefil one self-adhesive and One bulk fill. Filtek one bulk fill showed low resistance and low hardness number. Keywords: Bulk fill, Self-adhesive, Abrasive resistance, Microhardness Composite, Surefil one

show abstract

Effect of Beverages on Viscoelastic Properties of Resin-Based Dental Composites

Cited by 6 publications

References 38 publications

Comparative abrasive wear resistance and surface analysis of dental resin-based materials

Comparative abrasive wear resistance and surface analysis of dental resin-based materials

Simultaneous Evaluation of Creep Deformation and Recovery of Bulk-Fill Dental Composites Immersed in Food-Simulating Liquids

Abrasive resistance and microhardness of self-adhesive (Surefil one) and conventional bulk fill composites: An- in vitro study.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About