SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.34 issue3Retention of cemented zirconia copings on TiBase abutmentsInfluence of resin cement and thermocycling on milled lithium disilicate ceramic microshear bond strength author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Services on Demand

Journal

Article

Indicators

  • Have no cited articlesCited by SciELO

Related links

  • Have no similar articlesSimilars in SciELO

Share


Acta Odontológica Latinoamericana

Print version ISSN 0326-4815On-line version ISSN 1852-4834

Abstract

FERRARI, Beatriz A; ASUETA, María M; FUSARO, Laura G  and  KAPLAN, Andrea E. Mechanical and bonding properties of different combinations of nanohybrid and bulk-fill composites. Acta odontol. latinoam. [online]. 2021, vol.34, n.3, pp.221-225.  Epub Dec 31, 2021. ISSN 0326-4815.  http://dx.doi.org/10.54589/aol.34/3/221.

The aim of this research was to determine compressive and shear bond strength of blocks prepared with bulk-fill and nanofill composite resin combinations. Materials used were Filtek Bulk Fill (FBF) and Z350 (both 3M-ESPE) and Surefil SDR flow (SFF) - Dentsply. To determine shear bond strength, cylindrical specimens 10 mm thick were prepared with composite consisting of thicknesses of 6 mm of one material and 4 mm of the other, in the following combinations: G1: FBF- FBF; G2: Z350-Z350, G3: FBF-Z350, G4: Z350-SFF and G5: SFFSFF. Materials were cured using a 1100 mw/cm2 light for 20 seconds for each layer. Samples were stored for 24 hours at 37 °C in distilled water and shear bond strength was determined. To assess compressive strength, cylindrical samples 4 mm diameter and 6 mm thick consisting of 4 mm + 2 mm were used in the same combinations as described above, stored in distilled water at 37 °C for 24 hours, after which compressive strength was determined. Both tests were performed with a Universal testing machine at a cross head speed of 1 mm/min. Results were analyzed with ANOVA and Tukey’s test. Means and standard deviations in MPa for each group were the following: Shear bond strength: G1: 435.87 (65.86), G2: 233.6 (108.15), G3: 279.2 (22.05), G4:449.1 (109.35) and G5: 196.6 (51.16). Compressive strength: G1:160.07(4.27), G2: 149.49 (14.06), G3: 156.10 (29.99), G4: 199-30(39.28), G5: 171.23 (28.71). Evaluation with ANOVA showed no significant differences among combinations for compressive strength (p>0.05) and significant differences for bond strength (p<0.05). Tukey’s test showed three homogeneous groups. Under these experimental conditions, it can be concluded that the study combinations have adequate mechanical behavior, equivalent to materials used individually. However, shear bond strength was affected by the combinations analyzed.

Keywords : composite resins; shear strength; compressive strength.

        · abstract in Spanish     · text in English     · English ( pdf )