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.
Rehabilitation with implant-supported prostheses has reached high success rates. However, mechanical failures are still reported, mainly in retention screws of abutments in single implant-supported crowns; which is designed to be the weakest structure and the first component to fail under overloading. In this sense, the aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the influence of different joint designs (square or hexagonal) on resistance to deformation of driver-retention screw assembly of 3 commercial brands (Neodent, Singular, and Sin). A total of 42 retention screws from 3 commercial brands were used. The samples were divided into 2 joint groups, square (SQU) and hexagonal (HEX), and separated by commercial brands. Several components (implants and abutments) with standard platform (4.1 mm in diameter) were used. The resistance to deformation of the driver-retention screw assembly was measured using an accurate digital torque wrench for all commercial brands (Neodent [NEO], Singular [SGL], and Sin [SIN]) and joint designs (square or hexagonal). It was found no statistically significant difference (P <0.05) among the brands evaluated. On the other hand, square screws showed higher resistance to torsion than hexagonal screws; regardless the commercial brand.
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.