Ali Rıza ÇETİN, Ahmet Ercan HATAYSAL, Bilal AKTAŞ

YENİ İKİ TİP KOMPOZİT MATERYALİN MEKANİK ÖZELLİKLERİNİN KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı posterior ve üniversal kullanım için üretilen dental kompozit materyalleri, bükme dayanımı, mikro sertlik ve yüzey pürüzlülüğü gibi mekanik özellikleri açısından şu an piyasada yaygın olarak kullanılan kompozit materyallerle karşılaştırmaktır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Bu çalışmada, yeni üretilen NOVA Compo-HS ve NOVA Compo-N ile şu an piyasada yaygın olarak kullanılan kompozit materyaller Photoposterior, Estelite Posterior, X-tra fill, AELITE™ All-Purpose Body, Filtek Bulkfill, Tetric N-Ceram Bulkfill kullanıldı. Her bir materyalden silindir şeklinde (10x2mm boyutlarında) 20’şer örnek hazırlandı ve sonrasında örneklerin Ra cinsinden yüzey pürüzlülüğü ve Vickers sertlik değerleri belirlendi. Daha sonra her bir materyalden (2x2x25 mm boyutunda) dikdörtgen şeklinde örnekler hazırlanarak, instron cihazında 1 mm/dk hızda bükme dayanımı değerleri belirlendi. İstatistiksel analiz için tek yönlü ANOVA ve Tukey’s HSD ve Scheffe testleri kullanıldı.Bulgular: Materyaller arasında sertlik, pürüzlülük ve bükme dayanımları açısından farklılıklar gözlendi (P<0.05). Photoposterior ve AELITE™ All-Purpose, Compo-HS ve Compo-N ile karşılaştırıldığında belirgin olarak daha yüksek bükme dayanımı sergilediği gözlendi (p<0.05). Photoposterior; çalışmada kullanılan kompozitlerden daha yüksek mikro sertlik değeri gösterdi (P < 0.05). Compo-HS ve Compo-N’in yüzey pürüzlülük değerleri X-tra fill ve AELITE™ All-Purpose’dan daha düşük olduğu gözlendi (p<0.05). Compo-HS ve Compo-N ile Filtek Bulkfill ve Tetric N-Ceram Bulkfill arasında yüzey sertlikleri açısından istatistiksel açıdan anlamlı bir fark gözlenmedi.Sonuçlar: Bu çalışmada kullanılan mekanik test sonuçlarına göre yeni formülasyon kompozit Compo-N piyasada bulunan diğer üniversal kompozitlere benzer bulunarak, onlar kadar yeterli bulunmuştur. Ancak posterior dişler için üretilen Compo-HS, her ne kadar yüzey pürüzlülüğü açısından başarılı olsa da mekanik özellikleri bakımından diğer posterior kompozitler kadar yeterli bulunmamıştır.Anahtar Kelimeler: kompozit rezin, bükülme dayanımı, mikro sertlik, yüzey pürüzlülüğü

Anahtar Kelimeler:

kompozit rezin, bükülme dayanımı, mikro sertlik, yüzey pürüzlülüğü

COMPARISON OF MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF NEW COMPOSITE MATERIALS

Background:The aim of this study is to compare new dental composite materials produced for posterior or universal use in terms of their mechanical properties such as flexural strength, micro hardness and surface roughness.Methods:New formulation composites NOVA Compo-HS, NOVA Compo-N and currently existing composites: Photoposterior, Estelite Posterior, X-tra fill, AELITE™All-Purpose Body, Filtek Bulkfill, Tetric N-Ceram Bulkfill were used in this study.20 cylindrical specimens were prepared (10x2mm) of each material. Vickers hardness was determined under 300g load on the surface of each specimen. Surface roughness was measured with Computerize Roughness Tester twice as Ra on each specimen and mean roughness value was obtained. After that, 20 rectangular specimens (2x2x25mm) were prepared of each material and the specimens were tested for flexural strength using a three-point bending test with an Instron machine at a crosshead speed of 1mm/min. For statistical analyses, One–way ANOVA, Tukey’s HSD and Scheffe were used.Results:It was observed that Photoposterior and AELITE™All-Purpose exhibited significantly higher bending strength when compared to Compo-HS and Compo-N (p <0.05). Photoposterior; displayed higher microhardness values than all other composites (P < 0.05). The surface roughness values of Compo HS and Compo-N were observed to be lower than X-tra fill and AELITE ™ All-Purpose (p <0.05). There is no statistically significant difference between Compo-HS, Compo-N Filtek Bulkfill and Tetric N-Ceram (p>0.05).Conclusions:The results of this study suggest that Compo-N can offer similar performance to other universal composites. However, Compo-HS composite material is insufficient for restoration especially in posterior teeth.Keywords:Composite resin, flexural strength, micro hardness, surface roughness

Keywords:

Composite resin, flexural strength, micro hardness, surface roughness,

PDF

___

1. Ruyter IE, Oeysaed H: Composites for use in posterior teeth: composition and conversion. J Biomed Mater res. 1987; 21: 11-23 2. Moszner N, Salz U. New developments of polymeric dental composites. Prog Polym Sci. 2001;26(4):535-576. doi:10.1016/S0079-6700(01)00005-3. 3. Irie M, Suzuki K. Current luting cements: marginal gap formation of composite inlay and their mechanical properties. Dent Mater. 2001;17(4):347-353. doi:10.1016/S0109-5641(00)00093-2 4. Turssi C, Ferracane J, Vogel K. Filler features and their effects on wear and degree of conversion of particulate dental resin composites. Biomaterials. 2005;26(24):4932-4937. doi:10.1016/j.Biomaterials.2005.01.026. 5. Ünlü N, Çetin AR. New Developments in Ingredient of Composite Resin Materials: Review. Turkiye Klinikleri J Dental Sci. 2008;14(3):156-67 6. Baseren M. Surface Roughness of Nanofill and Nanohybrid Composite Resin and Ormocer-based Tooth-colored Restorative Materials after Several Finishing and Polishing Procedures. J Biomater Appl. 2004;19(2):121-134. doi:10.1177/0885328204044011. 7. Turssi CP, Ferracane JL, Ferracane LL. Wear and fatigue behavior of nano-structured dental resin composites. J Biomed Mater Res Part B Appl Biomater. 2006;78B(1):196-203. doi:10.1002/jbm.b.30475. 8. Blalock JS, Chan DCN, Browning WD, Callan R, Hackman S. Measurement of clinical wear of two packable composites after 6 months in service. J Oral Rehabil. 2006;33(1):59-63. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2842.2006.01540.x. 9. Czasch P, Ilie N. In vitro comparison of mechanical properties and degree of cure of bulk fill composites. Clin Oral Investig. 2013;17(1):227-235. doi:10.1007/s00784-012-0702-8. 10. Rothmund L, Reichl F-X, Hickel R, Styllou P, Styllou M, Kehe Kc, Yang Y, Högg C. Effect of layer thickness on the elution of bulk-fill composite components. Dent Mater (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2016.10.006 11. Leprince JG, Leveque P, Nysten B, Gallez B, Devaux J, Leloup G. New insight into the “depth of cure” of dimethacrylate-based dental composites. Dent Mater. 2012;28(5):512-520. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2011.12.004. 12. Wilson NHF, Norman RD, co-investigators of the multicentre clinical evaluation. Five-year findings of a multiclinical trial for posterior composite. J Dent. 1991;19(3):153-159. doi:10.1016/0300-5712(91)90005-J. 13. Cattani-Lorente M, Godin C, Bouillaguet S, Meyer J-M. Linear polymerization shrinkage of new restorative composite resins. Eur Cells Mater. 2003;5. 14. Weinmann W, Thalacker C, Guggenberger R. Siloranes in dental composites. Dent Mater. 2005;21(1):68-74. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2004.10.007 15. Ruyter IE, Oeysaed H: Composites for use in posterior teeth: composition and conversion. J Biomed Mater res. 1987; 21: 11-23 16. Nova Compo-N Product Brochure http://www.imicryl.com.tr/icerik/urunpdf/tr/264 17. Gladys S, Van Meerbeek B, Braem M, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Comparative Physico-mechanical Characterization of New Hybrid Restorative Materials with Conventional Glass-ionomer and Resin Composite Restorative Materials. J Dent Res. 1997;76(4):883-894. doi:10.1177/00220345970760041001. 18. Walker MP, Haj-Ali R, Wang Y, Hunziker D, Williams KB. Influence of environmental conditions on dental composite flexural properties. Dent Mater. 2006;22(11):1002-1007. doi:10.1016/J.DENTAL.2005.11.023. 19. Shahdad SA, McCabe JF, Bull S, Rusby S, Wassell RW. Hardness measured with traditional Vickers and Martens hardness methods. Dent Mater. 2007;23(9):1079-1085. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2006.10.001. 20. Marigo L, Rizzi M, La Torre G, Rumi G. 3-D surface profile analysis: different finishing methods for resin composites. Oper Dent. 26(6):562-568. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11699179. Accessed December 10, 2017. 21. Rodolpho PAR, Genci MS, Donassollo TA, Loguercio A, Demarco F. A clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: 17-year findings. J Dent. 2006; 34: 427 – 435. 22. Wilson NHF, Norman RD. Five-year findings of a multicentre clinical trial for a posterior composite. J Dent. 1991;19:153–159 23. Nalçacı A, Bağış B. In Vitro Evaluation of Nano-Hybrid Composite Resin for the Surface Hardness A.Ü. Diş Hek. Fak. Derg. 32(2) 91-98, 2005 24. Heintze SD, Zellweger G, Zappini G. The relationship between physical parameters and wear of dental composites. Wear. 2007; 263: 1138-1146. 25. Composite standarts: ASTM D7264 / D7264M Standard Test Method for Flexural Properties of Polymer Matrix Composite Materials. Book of Standards. 2007; 15 26. Chung SM, Yap AUJ, Chandra SP, Lim CT. Flexural strength of dental composite restoratives: Comparison of biaxial and three-point bending test. Journal of Applied Biomaterials. 2004; 71(2): 278 – 283 27. Bona ÁD, Benetti P, Borba M, Cecchetti D.Flexural and diametral tensile strength of composite resins. Braz Oral Res. 2008;22(1):84-9 28. Taşveren S. The comparıson of the surface hardness of two dıfferent restoratıve materıals. CÜ Diş Hek Fak Derg. 2005; 8(2): 94-97. 29. Pagniano RP, Johnston WM. The effect of unfilled resindilution on composite resin hardness and abrasion resistance. J Prosthet Dent. 1993;70(3): 214-218 30. Poskus LT, Placido E, Cardoso PEC. Influence of placement techniques on vickers and knoop hardness of class II composite resin restorations. Dent Mater. 2004; 20(8) : 726-32 31. Gladys S, Van MB, Braem M, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G.Comparative physico-mechanical characterization of new hybrid restorative materials with conventional glass-ionomer and resin composite restorative materials. J Dent Res. 1997;76: 883–894. 32. Asmussen E, Peutzfeldt A. Influence of UEDMA, BisGMA and TEGDMA on selected mechanical properties of experimental resin composites. Dent Mater.1998;14: 51-6. 33. Chung KH, Greener EH. Correlation between degree of conversion, filler concentration and mechanical properties of posterior composite resins. J Oral Rehabil 1990;17: 487-94. 34. Klymus ME, Shinkai RS, MotaEG, Oshima MS, Spohr AM, Burnett LH. Influence of the mechanical properties of composites for indirect dental restorations on pattern failure. Baltic Dental and Maxillofacial Journal, 2007; 9(2):56-60. 35. Kim KH, Ong JL, Okuno O. The effect of filler loading and morphology on the mechanical properties of contemporary composites. J Prosthet Dent 2002;87: 642-49. 36. Willems G, Lambrechts P, Braem M, Vanherle G. Composite resins in the 21st century. Quintessence Int. 1993; 24: 641-658. 37. Wassell RW, McCabe JF, Walls AWG. A two-body frictional wear test. J Dent Res. 1994; 73(9):1546 –1553. 38. Ferracane JL, Condon JR. Post-cure heat treatments for composites: properties and fractography. Dent Mater 1992;8: 290- 95. 39. Xu HHK, Smith DT, Schumacher GE, Eichmiller FC, Antonucci JM. Indentation modulus and hardness of whisker-reinforced heat-cured dental resin composites. Dent Mater. 2000; 16(4): 248–254 40. Turssi CP, Ferracane JL. Wear and fatigue behavior of nano-structured dental resin composites. J Biomed Mater Res. 2006;78(1): 196–203. 41. Yap AU, Lye KW, Sau CW. Surface characteristics of tooth-colored restoratives polished utilizing different polishing systems. Oper Dent 1997;22: 260–5. 42. Tjan AH, Chan CA. The polishability of posterior composites. J Prosthet Dent 1989;61:138–46.