Mechanical and Physical Properties of Two Different Resin-based Materials: A Comparative Study

In vitro comparison of the physical and mechanical properties of an ormocer with an ormocer-based composite and a nanocomposite restorative material

OBJECTIVES

To compare an ormocer with a first generation ormocer-based composite and a nanocomposite in terms of surface roughness, surface hardness, and microleakage.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An ormocer (Admira Fusion), a first generation ormocer-based composite (Admira) and a nanocomposite (Filtek Z350 XT) were prepared strictly in accordance with the manufacturer's instruction and recommendation to provide optimal material properties. Twelve disk samples of each material were evaluated to assess both surface roughness and surface hardness. For surface roughness, all samples were finished, polished, and Ra values measured with a profilometer. For surface hardness, samples were stored in an incubator, polished and a Vickers diamond indenter was used to record values. For microleakage, 36 standardized, Class V cavities were prepared and randomly divided into three groups. Restored teeth were thermally fatigued, immersed in 2% methylene blue solution for 48 h, sectioned, and scored for occlusal and gingival microleakage.

RESULTS

Statistical significance was set at p < .05. The one-way analysis of variance identified no significant difference in terms of surface roughness between the three material groups (p > .05). A significantly higher surface hardness was identified for the nanocomposite compared to both the ormocer (p < .001) and ormocer-based composite (p < .001). Fisher's exact test identified no significant difference in terms of occlusal microleakage (p = .534) and gingival microleakage (p = .093) between the three material groups.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant differences in terms of surface roughness or microleakage were noted. The nanocomposite was significantly harder than the ormocer materials.

The effects of intrinsic and extrinsic acids on nanofilled and bulk fill resin composites: Roughness, surface hardness, and scanning electron microscopy analysis

The objective of this study was to examine the effects of extrinsic or intrinsic acids on nanofilled and bulk fill resin materials in vitro. A total of 90 disks were prepared using dental restorative material (Filtek Z350XT, GrandioSO, Filtek Bulk Fill, X-tra fil). Thirty disks of each material were sub-divided into three groups (n = 10) that were immersed for 7 days in deionized water (DW), 5% citric acid (CA-pH 2.1), or 0.1% hydrochloric acid (HCl-pH = 1.2). Surface hardness and roughness (stylus profilometer by R_a parameter) analysis were performed before and after immersion. Morphological changes were evaluated by scanning electron microscopy. The data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (α = 0.05). All tested materials did not show significant differences in the effects of the DW, CA, or HCl solutions on surface roughness (p = .368). Likewise, the hardness loss was not affected by the solutions tested (p = .646), but there was a difference in the resin type (p = .002). Filtek Bulk Fill resin hardness was less affected, while Filtek Z350XT and GrandioSO presented the most hardness loss after 7 days of solution immersion. In terms of this experimental study, the results demonstrate the effectiveness of the mechanical properties (roughness and hardness surface) of nanofilled and bulk fill resin materials to resist erosion from extrinsic and intrinsic acids, therefore being potential candidates for dental applications.

Polymerization shrinkage, microhardness and depth of cure of bulk fill resin composites

The present in vitro study assessed the polymerization shrinkage/PS, Knoop microhardness/KHN and depth of cure/DC of 9 different resin composites : Filtek Bulk Fill Flowable (FBF), Surefill SDR flow (SDR), Xtra Base (XB), Filtek Z350XT Flowable (Z3F), Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior (FBP), Xtra Fill (SF), Tetric Evo Ceram Bulk Fill (TBF), Admira Fusion Xtra (ADM), and Filtek Z350XT (Z3XT). PS was assessed with a µ-CT machine, scanning 64 mm³ samples (n=8) before and after 20 s curing. KHN and DC were performed with a microhardness tester (n=8 for each group) right after 20 s light curing, with 3 readings per depth at every 0.5 mm. Low viscosity resin composites showed lower KHN values when compared with high viscosity resins. Z3XT showed the highest microhardness among the tested resin composites. Z3XT and Z3F showed lower DC when compared with bulk fill resin composites. All bulk fill resin composites presented depth of cure higher than 4.5 mm and similar or lower PS than conventional resin composites.