Food Simulating Organic Solvents for Evaluating Crosslink Density of Bulk Fill Composite Resin
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...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2017-01-01
|
| Series: | International Journal of Dentistry |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2017/1797091 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849307909259788288 |
|---|---|
| author | Neveen M. Ayad Hala A. Bahgat Eman Hussain Al Kaba Maryam Hussain Buholayka |
| author_facet | Neveen M. Ayad Hala A. Bahgat Eman Hussain Al Kaba Maryam Hussain Buholayka |
| author_sort | Neveen M. Ayad |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | 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 using t-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. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-1d699c9dcc6946babe3eb748b9d206f5 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 1687-8728 1687-8736 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2017-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | International Journal of Dentistry |
| spelling | doaj-art-1d699c9dcc6946babe3eb748b9d206f52025-08-20T03:54:37ZengWileyInternational Journal of Dentistry1687-87281687-87362017-01-01201710.1155/2017/17970911797091Food Simulating Organic Solvents for Evaluating Crosslink Density of Bulk Fill Composite ResinNeveen M. Ayad0Hala A. Bahgat1Eman Hussain Al Kaba2Maryam Hussain Buholayka3Restorative Dental Sciences Department, College of Dentistry, University of Dammam, Dammam, Saudi ArabiaRestorative Dental Sciences Department, College of Dentistry, University of Dammam, Dammam, Saudi ArabiaCollege of Dentistry, University of Dammam, Dammam, Saudi ArabiaCollege of Dentistry, University of Dammam, Dammam, Saudi ArabiaObjectives. 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 using t-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.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2017/1797091 |
| spellingShingle | Neveen M. Ayad Hala A. Bahgat Eman Hussain Al Kaba Maryam Hussain Buholayka Food Simulating Organic Solvents for Evaluating Crosslink Density of Bulk Fill Composite Resin International Journal of Dentistry |
| title | Food Simulating Organic Solvents for Evaluating Crosslink Density of Bulk Fill Composite Resin |
| title_full | Food Simulating Organic Solvents for Evaluating Crosslink Density of Bulk Fill Composite Resin |
| title_fullStr | Food Simulating Organic Solvents for Evaluating Crosslink Density of Bulk Fill Composite Resin |
| title_full_unstemmed | Food Simulating Organic Solvents for Evaluating Crosslink Density of Bulk Fill Composite Resin |
| title_short | Food Simulating Organic Solvents for Evaluating Crosslink Density of Bulk Fill Composite Resin |
| title_sort | food simulating organic solvents for evaluating crosslink density of bulk fill composite resin |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2017/1797091 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT neveenmayad foodsimulatingorganicsolventsforevaluatingcrosslinkdensityofbulkfillcompositeresin AT halaabahgat foodsimulatingorganicsolventsforevaluatingcrosslinkdensityofbulkfillcompositeresin AT emanhussainalkaba foodsimulatingorganicsolventsforevaluatingcrosslinkdensityofbulkfillcompositeresin AT maryamhussainbuholayka foodsimulatingorganicsolventsforevaluatingcrosslinkdensityofbulkfillcompositeresin |