scholarly journals Food Simulating Organic Solvents for Evaluating Crosslink Density of Bulk Fill Composite Resin

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neveen M. Ayad ◽  
Hala A. Bahgat ◽  
Eman Hussain Al Kaba ◽  
Maryam Hussain Buholayka
Keyword(s):  
Organic Solvent ◽  
Methyl Ethyl Ketone ◽  
Organic Solvents ◽  
Vickers Hardness ◽  
Crosslink Density ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Methyl Ethyl ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Crosslink Densities

Objectives.To evaluate crosslink densities of two bulk fill composite resins and determine if the used Food Simulating Organic Solvent (FSOS) affected them.Methods.Forty specimens were prepared from SureFill and SonicFill bulk fill composite resins, 20 each. All specimens were stored dry for 24 h. Each group was divided into 2 subgroups: stored in ethanol (E) 75% or in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) 100% for 24 h. Crosslink density was evaluated by calculating the difference between the Vickers hardness numbers of the specimens stored dry and after their storage in FSOS. The data were statistically analyzed usingt-test.Results.The means of crosslink density in E and MEK were 6.99% and 9.44% for SureFill and 10.54% and 11.92% for SonicFill, respectively.t-test displayed significant differences between crosslink densities of SureFill and SonicFill: (P<0.0001) in E and (P=0.02) in MEK and between crosslink densities of SureFill in E and MEK (P=0.02).Conclusions.Crosslink density of bulk fill composite resin can be evaluated using E or MEK. SureFill has higher crosslink density than SonicFill in both E and MEK.

Auto-Ignition Temperature Data for Selected Ketones

2012 ◽  
Vol 560-561 ◽  
pp. 145-151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chan Cheng Chen ◽  
Tsung Han Han ◽  
Sheng Xiang Hong ◽  
Der Jen Hsu
Keyword(s):  
Methyl Ethyl Ketone ◽  
Ignition Temperature ◽  
Test Method ◽  
Methyl Ethyl ◽  
External Energy ◽  
Auto Ignition ◽  
Chemical Database ◽  
Flame Ignition ◽  
External Energy Source ◽  
The Difference

Auto-ignition temperature (AIT) is usually defined as the lowest temperature at which a substance will produce hot-flame ignition in air at atmospheric pressure without the aid of an external energy source such as spark or flame. Its principal applications include: defining the maximum acceptable surface temperature in a particular area, usually for electrical classification purpose, to prevent fire and explosion hazards; determining the possible hazardous consequence associated with leakage of flammable chemicals in risk assessment methods. Although AIT is indispensable for safely handling and operating flammable substance, the AITs data are, however, very much diverse in different data compilations. In present work the AITs of three ketones are measured in compliance with the ASTM E659 test method. The measured AITs are (461.7 ± 9.2) °C, (397.8 ± 8.0) °C and (399.0 ± 8.0) °C for Methyl Ethyl Ketone, Methyl Isoamyl Ketone and 2-Heptanone, respectively. It is found that the AIT compiled in DIPPR 2009 is beyond the experimental reproducibility in Methyl Ethyl Ketone and Methyl Isoamyl Ketone, and the difference is found to be of 54 °C and 207 °C and 6 °C for Methyl Ethyl Ketone Methyl and Isoamyl Ketone, respectively. The AIT reported in The Chemical Database also deviates from that obtained in present work with certain degree, and the difference is found to be of 54 °C, 57 °C and 133 °C for Methyl Ethyl Ketone, Methyl Isoamyl Ketone and 2- Heptanone, respectively.

scholarly journals Comparison of silorane and methacrylate-based composite resins on the curing light transmission

2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 538-542 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ricardo Danil Guiraldo ◽  
Simonides Consani ◽  
Rafael Leonardo Xediek Consani ◽  
Sandrine Bittencourt Berger ◽  
Wilson Batista Mendes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Light Transmission ◽  
Knoop Hardness ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Power Meter ◽  
Light Curing ◽  
Curing Light ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Spectral Distributions ◽  
The Difference

The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of different composite resins - Filtek P90 (silorane-based composite) and Heliomolar (methacrylate-based composite) - on light transmission and decrease in Knoop hardness between the bottom and top of cured specimens. The irradiance of a light-curing unit (LCU) was measured with a power meter (Ophir Optronics; 900 mw/cm2) and spectral distributions were obtained using a spectrometer (USB 2000). Twenty standardized cylindrical specimens (2 mm thick x 7 mm diameter) of each composite resin were obtained by curing using the LCU for 40 s. Light energy transmission through the composite was calculated (n=10). The Knoop hardness number for each surface was recorded as the mean of 3 indentations. The difference in Knoop hardness between the top and bottom (DKH) of the same specimen was calculated (n=10). The irradiance of light that passed through Filtek P90 (272 mW/cm2) was not significantly greater than that the passed through Heliomolar (271 mW/cm2). The DKH of Filtek P90 (25%) was significantly higher than that of Heliomolar (12%). There was a greater degree of subsurface polymerization of the methacrylate-based composite compared to the silorane-based composite.

scholarly journals Microhardness of Two Composite Resins with Different Curing Sources

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ebaa Ibrahim Alagha ◽  
Mustafa Ibrahim Alagha
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Blue Laser ◽  
Light Sources ◽  
Energy Effect ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Laser Curing ◽  
Resin Curing

Abstract Background This study evaluated the influence of two light sources on the microhardness of two recent composite resins.Methods A total of one hundred and twenty specimens were prepared and divided into two groups according to the composite resin restoration used (Tetric EvoCeram Bulkfill) and (Universal Nanohybrid Mosaic). Each group was subdivided into four subgroups according to the light source used with different curing intervals: laser curing system (SIROLaser) for 10,15, and 20 seconds and conventional blue light system (LED) for 20 seconds. Microhardness testing machine was used to assess the microhardness. Two-way ANOVA was done for comparing resin composite and curing energy effect on different variable studied. One-way ANOVA followed by pair-wise Tukey’s post-hoc tests were performed to detect significance between each composite subgroups and t-test for subgroups. P values ≤ 0.05 are considered statistically significant in all tests.Results LED cured Tetric EvoCeram Bulkfill composite resin recorded higher B/T ratio than laser cured one and the difference in B/T ratio between both energies was statistically non-significant. LED cured Mosaic composite resin recorded higher B/T ratio than laser cured one. The difference in B/T ratio between both energies was statistically significant.Conclusion SIROLaser Blue laser device has been promoted for composite resin curing with different curing intervals, but the high cost and technique sensitivity result in their limited use. Clinical Significance: Different types of curing systems are present in the dental practice. The use of SIROLaser Blue laser to photopolymerize composite resin will offers proper polymerization properties.

scholarly journals Organic Solvent Sensors Using Polymer-Dispersed Liquid Crystal Films with a Pillar Pattern

Polymers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (17) ◽  
pp. 2906
Author(s):  
Chia-Yi Huang ◽  
Shih-Hung Lin
Keyword(s):  
Liquid Crystals ◽  
Organic Solvent ◽  
Organic Solvents ◽  
Incident Light ◽  
Functional Monomers ◽  
Liquid Crystal Films ◽  
Polymer Dispersed Liquid Crystal ◽  
Crystal Films ◽  
Polymer Dispersed ◽  
The Difference

An organic solvent sensor of polymer-dispersed liquid crystals (PDLCs) film is fabricated by a combination of tri-functional monomers and LCs. When the patterned PDLC film comes into contact with the organic solvent, the organic solvent will penetrate into the film to induce the orientation of the liquid crystals, which will change from an ordered to a disordered state, which causes the PDLC film to scatter incident light. The experiment used acetone and ethanol as the organic solvents of interest. The results show that the patterned PDLC film has a stronger response to acetone than to ethanol. Based on the difference in the intensity of light scattering and the response time of the patterned PDLC film to different organic solvents, the results can be used to identify and recognize different types of organic solvents.

Study Regarding the Influence of Polymerization Mode of Light Unit on Surface Microhardness of Composite Resins

2015 ◽  
Vol 754-755 ◽  
pp. 271-275
Author(s):  
Simona Stoleriu ◽  
Gianina Iovan ◽  
Manuela Cristina Perju ◽  
Andrei Victor Sandu ◽  
Sorin Andrian
Keyword(s):  
Vickers Hardness ◽  
High Intensity ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Surface Hardness ◽  
Pulse Mode ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Surface Microhardness ◽  
Mean Values ◽  
Inner Diameter ◽  
Composite Samples

The aim of the study was to compare the surface microhardness of composite resins polymerized in different mode of light unit. Three commercial composite resins: Charisma (Heraeus Kulzer Co.), Filtek Z 250 (3M ESPE Co.) and G-aenial Anterior (GC Company Co.), were used in this study. Fifteen samples of each material were obtained by placing the composite resin in plastic rings having 2 mm high and 6 mm inner diameter. All composite samples were cured using blue light-emitted diode G 0010 (SKI, China). Five samples were cured using ramp mode of the light unit, five samples were cured using single light: high intensity (constant) mode and five samples were cured using pulse mode. The samples were finished and polished and then stored in distilled water, at room temperature for 48 hours. The samples were subjected to microhardness evaluation using microhardness tester (Micro-Vickers Hardness System CV-400DMTM, CV Instruments Namicon). A 50 g load was applied through a Vickers indenter. For each sample three indentations were made in different areas of the sample and the value of Vickers hardness was calculated as a mean result of the three recordings. Statistical Mann-Whitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis test were used to compare the values of surface hardness. Polymerization of all three composite resins using pulse mode leaded to significantly lowest mean hardness values and single light high intensity mode to the highest values. Filtek Z250 composite resin showed the highest microhardness mean values in all three polymerization mode and Charisma the lowest values. Surface microhardness of composite resins is influenced by different modes of light unit. Single light high intensity mode of polymerization leaded to the highest values of microhardness, followed in descending order by ramp and pulse mode. The best results regarding the surface microhardness was recorded for Filtek Z250composite resin, followed in descending order by G-aenial Anterior and Charisma.

scholarly journals Microhardness Assessment of Two Nanohybrid Composite Resins with Two Curing Technologies

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (D) ◽  
pp. 81-86
Author(s):  
Ebaa Ibrahim Alagha ◽  
Mustafa Ibrahim Alagha
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Degree Of Polymerization ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Blue Laser ◽  
Light Sources ◽  
Energy Effect ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Bottom To Top

AIM:This study evaluated the influence of two light sources on the microhardness of two recent composite resins. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 120 specimens were prepared and divided into two groups according to the composite resin restoration used (Tetric EvoCeram Bulk fill) and (Universal Nanohybrid Mosaic). Each group was subdivided into four subgroups according to the curing sources used with different curing duration’s laser curing system (SIROLaser) for 10, 15, and 20 s and conventional blue light system (LED) for 20 s. A microhardness testing machine was used to assess the microhardness of Tetric EvoCeram Bulk fill and Universal Nanohybrid Mosaic. Two-way ANOVA statistical test was used for comparing resin composite and curing energy effect on different variable studied. One-way ANOVA followed by pair-wise Tukey’s post hoc tests was performed to detect significance between each composite subgroups and t-test for subgroups. P ≤ 0.05 is considered statistically significant in all tests. RESULTS: LED cured Tetric EvoCeram Bulk fill composite resin recorded higher bottom to top ratio (B/T ratio) than laser cured one and the difference in B/T ratio between both energies was statistically non-significant. LED cured Mosaic composite resin recorded higher B/T ratio than laser cured one . The difference in bottom to top ratio between both curing devices was statistically significant. CONCLUSION: SIROLaser Blue laser device increases the degree of polymerization and achieves better curing of composite resins than LED. RECOMMENDATION: Different types of curing systems are present in the dental practice. The use of SIROLaser Blue laser to photopolymerize composite resin will offers proper polymerization properties.

scholarly journals Evaluation of the surface hardness of composite resins before and after polishing at different times

2006 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 188-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle Alexandra Chinelatti ◽  
Daniela Thomazatti Chimello ◽  
Renata Pereira Ramos ◽  
Regina Guenka Palma-Dibb
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Analysis ◽  
Vickers Hardness ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Surface Hardness ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
The Other ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Tukey Test ◽  
Natural Flow ◽  
Before And After

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the surface hardness of six composite resins: Revolution, Natural Flow, Fill Magic Flow, Flow-it! (flowables), Silux Plus (microfilled) and Z100 (minifilled) before and after polishing at different times. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this purpose, 240 specimens (5mm diameter, 1.4mm high) were prepared. Vickers hardness was determined before and after polishing at different times: immediately, 24h, 7 and 21 days after preparation of the samples. Statistical analysis was performed by ANOVA and Tukey test. RESULTS: There was no difference in the hardness of flowable resins, which had lower hardness than the minifilled resin. The minifilled resin showed the highest surface hardness as compared to the other materials (p<0.01). All materials exhibited higher hardness after polishing, being more evident after 7 days. CONCLUSION: It may be concluded that, regardless of the composite resin, surface hardness was considerably increased when polishing was delayed and performed 1 week after preparation of the samples.

scholarly journals The Effect of Composite Fiber Insertion along with Lowshrinking Composite Resin on Cuspal Deflection of Root-filled Maxillary Premolars

2012 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 595-601 ◽  
Author(s):  
Siavash Savadi Oskoee ◽  
Amir Ahmad Ajami ◽  
Parnian Alizadeh Oskoee ◽  
Elmira Jafari Navimipour ◽  
Gazale Ahmadi Zonuz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fracture Strength ◽  
Fracture Resistance ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Glass Fibers ◽  
Composite Fiber ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Significance Level ◽  
Maxillary Premolars ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Group 1

ABSTRACT Aim The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of three methods of composite fiber placement along with siloranebased composite resin on cuspal deflection and fracture strength of root-filled maxillary premolars. Materials and methods Mesio-occluso-distal cavities were prepared in 60 extracted premolars subsequent to endodontic treatment. The remaining thickness of buccal and lingual walls at height of contour was 2.5 ± 0.2 mm and the gingival cavosurface margin was 1.5 mm coronal to cementoenamel junction. Subsequent to measurement of primary intercuspal distances, the teeth were randomly divided into four groups. In group 1, the cavities were only filled with Filtek Silorane composite resin. In the other three groups, preimpregnated glass fibers were placed at gingival, middle and occlusal thirds respectively, and the cavities were restored similar to the group 1. Cuspal deflection was recorded in micrometer using a stereomicroscope. Fracture strength of the samples was measured in Newton subsequent to thermocycling. Data was analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney U, one-way ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey tests at a significance level of p < 0.05. Results The highest cuspal deflection was recorded in the group 1, and the difference between group 1 and other groups was significant (p < 0.001). Fracture resistance in group 4 was significantly higher than that in other groups (p < 0.001). Conclusion In restoring root-filled premolars with siloranebased composite resins, cuspal deflection decreased with the use of preimpregnated glass fibers. Clinical significance Using preimpregnated glass fibers along with silorane-based composite resin may lead to better results in cuspal deflection and fracture resistance of endodonticallytreated maxillary premolars. How to cite this article Oskoee SS, Oskoee PA, Navimipour EJ, Ajami AA, Zonuz GA, Bahari M, Pournaghiazar F. The Effect of Composite Fiber Insertion along with Low-shrinking Composite Resin on Cuspal Deflection of Root-filled Maxillary Premolars. J Contemp Dent Pract 2012;13(5):595-601.

scholarly journals COMPARISON OF VOLUMETRIC SHRINKAGE OF COMPOSITE RESIN NANOCERAMIC AND NANOFILLER

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
BANI IMRAN MASULILI ◽  
ENDANG SUPRASTIWI ◽  
DEWA AYU NYOMAN PUTRI ARTININGSIH ◽  
CATERIN NOVISTA
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Shrinkage Rate ◽  
Volumetric Shrinkage ◽  
Micro Ct ◽  
Cause Of Failure ◽  
Nanohybrid Composite ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Composite Resin Restorations ◽  
Resin Restorations

Objective: The main cause of failure of composite resin restorations is volumetric shrinkage. The aim of this study was to analyze and comparevolumetric shrinkage in nanohybrid and nanoceramic composite resins.Methods: A total of 32 (3 cm×3 cm× 2 mm) cavities were analyzed for volume using micro-CT. The samples were divided randomly into two groups: 16 cavities that were restored using nanohybrid composite resin and 16 cavities that were restored using nanoceramic composite resin. The composite resin volume was analyzed using micro-CT.Results: The difference in volumetric shrinkage between nanohybrid composite resin 245,866.5 mm3 (3%) and nanoceramic composite resin 3,470,175.13 mm3 (5%) was not significant (p=0.585).Conclusion: Nanohybrid and nanoceramic composite resins have the same volumetric shrinkage rate.

scholarly journals Differences of methacrylate and silorane based composite resins surface hardness after 40% hydrogen peroxide application

2013 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Amalina Putri ◽  
Rahmi Alma Farah Adang ◽  
Opik Taofik Hidayat
Keyword(s):  
Hydrogen Peroxide ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Artificial Saliva ◽  
Surface Hardness ◽  
Hardness Test ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Average Value ◽  
Hardness Tester ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Difference

Composite restoration is frequently found on teeth before doing any bleaching treatment. Hydrogen peroxide is a bleaching agent which enable transition to one of the composite physical properties. The aim of this research was to observe the difference of surface hardness between methacrylate and silorane based composite resin after application of 40% hydrogen peroxide. This true experiment involved 36 specimens from two different disc-shaped methacrylate and silorane based composite resins, with 18 specimens methacrylate and 18 silorane. Every specimen groups were immersed in artificial saliva solution and divided into two groups; the first group consisted of 9 specimens of control which were tested directly using microvickers hardness tester and another group consisted of 9 specimens which had been added by 40% hydrogen peroxide for hardness test. The result showed the different surface hardness average value of metachrylate and silorane based composite resin after application of 40% hydrogen peroxide. The surface hardness of methacrylate and silorane based composite resins was 41.8 VHN and 33.7 VHN (p>0.05) with t-test, respectively. From this study concluded that there was no significant difference between methacrylate and silorane based composite resins after 40% hydrogen peroxide application.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document