Serviços Personalizados
Journal
Artigo
Indicadores
- Citado por SciELO
- Acessos
Links relacionados
- Similares em SciELO
Compartilhar
Odontología Vital
versão On-line ISSN 1659-0775versão impressa ISSN 1659-0775
Resumo
ACURIO-BENAVENTE, Paloma; FALCON-CABRERA, Giancarlo; CASAS-APAYCO, Leslie e MONTOYA CAFERATTA, Paola. Comparative evaluation of compressive strength of conventional resins vs Bulk fill composites. Odontología Vital [online]. 2017, n.27, pp.69-77. ISSN 1659-0775.
Objective:
The aim of this study was compare the compressive strength of 2 Bulk fill resin composites and 2 conventional resin composites.
Materials and methods:
one hundred and thirty six cylindrical samples (2mm and 4mm), divided in 8 groups (n = 17); G1 SonicFill™ (4x2mm), G2 SonicFill™ (4x4mm), G3 Tetric® N-Ceram Bulk Fill (4x2mm), G4 Tetric® N-Ceram Bulk Fill (4x4mm), G5 Filtek™ Z250 XT (4x2mm), G6 Filtek™ Z250 XT (4x4mm), G7 Te-Econom Plus® (4x2mm) and G8 Te-Econom Plus® (4x4mm). Specimens were evaluated to compressive stress test using Instron® machine at crosshead speed of 1.0 mm/min. One way Anova, Kruskall Wallis, Student’s t and U Mann Whitney tests were employed for statistical analyses.
Results:
For Bulk resin composites, Tetric® N-Ceram Bulk Fill (310.06-4x2mm, 303.87-4x4mm) showed higher compressive strength than SonicFill™. For conventional resin composites, Filtek™ Z250 XT (295.9-4x2mm, 289.7-4x4mm) showed higher compressive strength than Te-Econom Plus®. For comparison,Tetric® N-Ceram Bulk Fill was higher compressive strength in both thickness 4x2mm (p=0.122) and 4x4mm (p=0.333) and it was statistically significant (<0.001*- 4x2mm, 0.004-4x4mm) among them.
Conclusion:
Tetric® N-Ceram Bulk Fill offers a good mechanical property like a compressive strength which is better in comparison to the others resin composites evaluated in this study.
Palavras-chave : Compressive strength; resin composites; dental materials; Bulk fill.