This study investigated the viscoelastic properties of contemporary bulk-fill restoratives in distilled water and artificial saliva using dynamic mechanical analysis. The materials evaluated included a conventional composite (Filtek Z350), two bulk-fill composites (Filtek Bulk-fill and Tetric N Ceram), a bulk-fill giomer (Beautifil-Bulk Restorative), and two novel reinforced glass ionomer cements (Zirconomer [ZR] and Equia Forte [EQ]). The glass ionomer materials were also assessed with and without resin coating (Equia Forte Coat). Test specimens 12 × 2 × 2 mm of the various materials were fabricated using customized stainless-steel molds. After light polymerization/initial set, the specimens were removed from the molds, finished, measured, and conditioned in distilled water or artificial saliva at 37°C for seven days. The materials (n=10) were then subjected to dynamic mechanical testing in flexure mode at 37°C and a frequency of 0.1 to 10 Hz. Storage modulus, loss modulus, and loss tangent data were subjected to normality testing and statistical analysis using one-way analysis of variance/Dunnett's test and t-test at a significance level of p < 0.05. Mean storage modulus ranged from 3.16 ± 0.25 to 8.98 ± 0.44 GPa, while mean loss modulus ranged from 0.24 ± 0.03 to 0.65 ± 0.12 GPa for distilled water and artificial saliva. Values for loss tangent ranged from 45.7 ± 7.33 to 134.2 ± 12.36 (10). Significant differences in storage/loss modulus and loss tangent were observed between the various bulk-fill restoratives and two conditioning mediums. Storage modulus was significantly improved when EQ and ZR was not coated with resin.

No abstract

ObjectiveTo assess the effectiveness of the resting foot splint to prevent ankle contracture.MethodsWe performed a randomized controlled trial in 33 patients with brain injury with ankle dorsiflexor weakness (muscle power ≤grade 2). Both groups continued conventional customized physical therapy, but the patients in the foot splint group were advised to wear a resting foot splint for more than 12 hours per day for 3 weeks. The data were assessed before and 3 weeks after the study. The primary outcome was the change in ankle dorsiflexion angle after 3 weeks.ResultsBefore the study, there were no differences between groups in gender, age, time post-injury, brain injury type, initial edema, spasticity, passive range of ankle dorsiflexion, Fugl-Meyer score (FMS), or Functional Ambulation Classification. A significant improvement in ankle dorsiflexion angle, and FMS was found after 3 weeks in both groups. The splint group showed more spasticity than the control group after 3 weeks (p=0.04). The change of ankle dorsiflexion angle, foot circumference, spasticity, and FMS after adjusting initial value and spasticity were not significantly different between the 2 groups.ConclusionWearing a resting foot splint for 3 weeks did not affect joint mobility in patients with subacute brain injury regularly attending personalized rehabilitation programs. Further studies of larger sample sizes with well controlled in spasticity are required to evaluate the effects of the resting foot splint.