Article Sidebar

PDF
Date Published: 21/07/2021
Abstract Views: 247
Views PDF: 130
DOI: https://doi.org/10.51298/vmj.v501i2.486
Issue
Vol. 501 No. 2 (2021)
Section
Các bài báo
How to Cite
Thu Thủy, N. . (2021). COMPARISON OF FRACTURE TOUGHNESS OF A FIBER REINFORCED COMPOSITE EVERX POSTERIOR AND BULK FILLING COMPOSITES. Vietnam Medical Journal, 501(2). https://doi.org/10.51298/vmj.v501i2.486

COMPARISON OF FRACTURE TOUGHNESS OF A FIBER REINFORCED COMPOSITE EVERX POSTERIOR AND BULK FILLING COMPOSITES

Nguyễn Thu Thủy

Main Article Content

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the fracture toughness of a fiber reinforced composite everX posterior and bulk filling compositesSDR, Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill, SonicFill. Materials and methods: In vitro study on 40 lower third molars, divided into 4 groups as follows: group 1 (10 teeth) everX posterior composite fillings, group 2 (10 teeth) SDR composite fillings, group 3 (10 teeth) SDR composite fillings and group 4 (10 teeth) Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fillcomposite fillings. Results: The fracture toughness of everX Posterior, SDR, SonicFill, Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill composites is 2533.5 ± 438.4 (N), 2495.7 ± 747.7 (N), 2344.0 ± 532.6 (N), 2222.4 ± 387.8 (N).The differences in fracture toughness between 4 groups were not statistically significant. The everX Posterior fiber reinforced composite has the highest favorable fracture pattern rate (40%), followed by SonicFill (20%), SDR and Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill with similar rates (10%). The difference in fracture patterns between experimental groups was not statistically significant. Conclusion: Fracture toughness and fracture pattern between fiber reinforced composite everX Posterior and bulk filling composites SDR, Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill, SonicFill are no different.

Article Details

Keywords

Fiber composite, bulk composite, fracture toughness

References

1. Abouelleil H, Pradelle N, Villat C (2015), “Comparison of mechanical properties of a new fiber reinforced composite and bulk filling composites”, Restor Dent Endod 2015,40 (4), pp.262-270.
2. Bonilla E D, Yasharb M, Caputo A A (2003), “Fracture toughness of nine flowable resin composites”, The journal of prosthetic dentistry, 89, (3), pp.261-267.
3. Frater M, Forster A, Kereszturi M, Braunitzer G, Nagy K (2014), ” In vitro fracture resistance of molar teeth restored with a short fibre-reinforced composite material”, Journal of dentistry, 42 (9), pp.1143-1150.
4. Fronza BM, Rueggeberg FA, Braga RR, Mogilevych B, Soares LES, Martin AA, Ambrosano Glaucia, Giannini M (2015), “Monomer conversion, microhardness, internal marginal adaptation, and shrinkage stress of bulk-fill resin composite”, Dental Material, 31 (12), pp. 1542-1551.
5. Garoushi S, Sailynoja E, Vallittu PK, Lassila L (2013), ”Physical properties and depth of cure of a new short fiber reinforced composite”, Dental Materials, 29 (8), pp.835-841.
6. Garoushi S, Vallittu PK, Lassila LVJ (2011), ”Fracture toughness, compressive strength and load-bearing capacity of short glass fiber-reinforced composite resin”, The Chinese Journal of dental research, 14 (1), pp.15-19.
7. Tezvergil A, Lassila LVJ, Vallittu PK (2005), “The shear bond strength of bidirectional and random-oriented fiber-reinforced composite to tooth structure”, Journal of Dentistry, 33 (6), pp.509-516.