The aim of this study was to evaluate the bond strength, bottom/top hardness ratio, marginal adaptation, and interfacial nanoleakage of regular viscosity bulk fill composites (RVBFC) and regular viscosity traditional composites (RVTC). Two RVBFC (Filtek Bulk Fill and Aura Bulk Fill) and two RVTC (Filtek Z250XT and Aura) were assessed. Forty conical cavities (4.8×2.8×4.0) were prepared in bovine dentin and restored with composites (n=10). After 24h in water, marginal adaptation was evaluated by staining with a caries detector. The top and bottom surfaces of the conical restorations were stained for five seconds and the gap percentage in the composite/dentin interface was determined using digital images on a measurement program (ImageTool). The Vickers microhardness was measured and the bottom/top microhardness ratio (B/T) was determined. Push-out bond strength test was performed in a universal testing machine (0.5mm/min) and failure modes were evaluated in a stereomicroscope (20×). Other specimens (n=3) were produced for interfacial nanoleakage evaluation. Data were analyzed using one and two-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test (α=0.05). The gap percentage was higher in the bottom compared to the top. The B/T ratio of the Aura Bulk Fill was statistically lower than other composites. Push-out bond strength were similar among composites. The RVBFC presented lower nanoleakage than the RVTC in the bottom of the conical restoration and there was no difference among the materials in the top surfaces. In conclusion, Filtek Bulk Fill performed better than Aura Bulk Fill regarding the analyzed properties.
This study aimed to evaluate the influence of sterilization methods on conventional and bulk-fill resin composites' (BFRCs) surface properties in an attempt to preview bias in laboratory bacterial adhesion tests. Two regular viscosity conventional resin composites [Filtek Z350 XT™ (Z350) and IPS Empress Direct™ (ED)] and two regular viscosity BFRCs [Filtek Bulk Fill™ (FILT) and Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill IVA™ (TBF)] were used. The materials were characterized by Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM), surface roughness (SR), and wettability (W) after sterilization with hydrogen peroxide gas plasma (HPGP) and steam sterilization (SS). Nonsterilized samples served as a control group (n = 5). Statistical analysis was performed using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey post hoc test (p < 0.05). For SR, there were no statistically significant differences among the groups (p > .05). SS method decreased the contact angle for FILT and Z350 (p < .01). The SS promoted more exposition of filler particles, while the HPGP method did not alter the tested materials' morphology. Therefore, sterilization methods affected the resin composites tested selectively. HPGP seems to be the most recommended method to sterilize the tested resin composites before laboratory bacterial adhesion tests.
Objectives: The aim of this study is to evaluate bond strength (BS), shrinkage stress (SS), flexural strength (FS), and elastic modulus (E) of three flowable bulk fill in comparison with conventional composites. Materials and Methods: Three bulk fill (Filtek Bulk Fill Flow, Surefil SDR, X-tra Base) and three conventional composites (Filtek Z250 XT, Grandioso, Dentsply TPH3) were used. For BS, conical cavities ( n = 10) were prepared in bovine dentine and restored with materials and were analyzed through push-out test in a universal testing machine (UTM). For FS/EM, 60 ( n = 10) bar specimens (7 mm × 2 mm × 1 mm) were prepared and evaluated with a UTM. SS was measured in UTM coupled to an extensometer ( n = 5). The data were statistically evaluated using one-way ANOVA/Tukey tests ( P < 0.05). Results: Conventional composites showed higher E when compared to bulk-fill composites. Regarding FS, they showed similar results, except for (XBF) Xtra Bulk Fill that was inferior. SS and BS of bulk-fill composites were significantly lower and higher than conventional composites, respectively, except for XBF, which showed similar BS to conventional ones. Conclusions: Flowable bulk-fill composites, except XBF, showed higher BS, lower SS, similar FS, and lower E when compared to conventional ones.
The aim of this study was to investigate if sterilization methods would promote changes in the selected adhesion‐related surface properties of glass ionomer cements (GICs). Riva self‐cure (RSC) and Riva light‐cure (RLC) GICs were tested. Thirty samples were prepared according to the type of material (RSC and RLC) and sterilization method: hydrogen peroxide gas plasma (HPGP), steam sterilization (SS), and no sterilization (n = 5 per group). A Teflon matrix (5 × 2 mm) was filled with one of the GICs to produce the samples. For the groups with the RLC material, the samples were light cured using a light curing unit for 20 s. After 24 hr, finishing and polishing were performed in all samples and then they were sterilized. Surface roughness, wettability, and micromorphology were accessed using a profilometer, a goniometer, and a scanning electron microscopy, respectively. Data were statistically analyzed through a two‐way ANOVA and Tukey post‐hoc test (p < .05). Both sterilization methods promoted similar roughness values to the nonsterilized samples (p > .05). HPGP decreased contact angle for RSC (p < .01), and SS increased contact angle for RLC (p < .01). Samples subjected to HPGP presented similar surface micromorphology to nonsterilized ones, regardless of the material. SS promoted exposition of smaller filler particles in both materials. Although sterilization methods did not alter surface roughness and wettability, the sterilization methods selectively altered the micromorphology of the materials tested. Research highlights This study's main finding suggests that each sterilization method altered the surface of glass ionomers in different ways. Thus, the choice of sterilization methods prior to bacterial adhesion can lead to a bias in antimicrobial studies.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.