• English
    • español
  • English 
    • English
    • español
  • Login
View Item 
  •   Home
  • Tesis
  • Pregrado
  • Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud
  • Odontologia
  • View Item
  •   Home
  • Tesis
  • Pregrado
  • Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud
  • Odontologia
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Browse

All of UPCCommunitiesTitleAuthorsAdvisorIssue DateSubmit DateSubjectsThis CollectionTitleAuthorsAdvisorIssue DateSubmit DateSubjectsProfilesView

My Account

LoginRegister

Quick Guides

AcercaPolíticasPlantillas de tesis y trabajos de investigaciónFormato de publicación de tesis y trabajos de investigaciónFormato de publicación de otros documentosLista de verificación

Statistics

Display statistics

Comparación de la resistencia compresiva de resinas convencionales vs resinas tipo bulk fill

  • CSV
  • RefMan
  • EndNote
  • BibTex
  • RefWorks
Thumbnail
Name:
Acurio _Falcon.pdf
Size:
1.107Mb
Format:
PDF
Download
Thumbnail
Name:
Acurio _Falcon.docx
Embargo:
2087-02-22
Size:
3.001Mb
Format:
Microsoft Word 2007
Download
Thumbnail
Name:
Binder1.pdf
Embargo:
2087-02-22
Size:
779.0Kb
Format:
PDF
Download
Average rating
 
   votes
Cast your vote
You can rate an item by clicking the amount of stars they wish to award to this item. When enough users have cast their vote on this item, the average rating will also be shown.
Star rating
 
Your vote was cast
Thank you for your feedback
Authors
Falcón Cabrera, Giancarlo
Acurio Benavente, Paloma
Advisors
Cafferata Montoya, Paola
Casas Apayco, Leslie
Issue Date
22/02/2017
Keywords
Resinas compuestas
Pruebas de dureza
Cementos de resina
Cemento dentario
Odontología

Metadata
Show full item record
Citation
1. Cabrera GF, Benavente PA. Comparación de la resistencia compresiva de resinas convencionales vs resinas tipo bulk fill [Internet]. Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas (UPC); 2017. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/10757/621017
Publisher
Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas (UPC)
URI
http://hdl.handle.net/10757/621017
Abstract
Objetivo: El propósito de este estudio fue comparar la resistencia compresiva de 2 resinas tipo Bulk fill y 2 resinas convencionales. Materiales y Métodos: 136 muestras cilíndricas (2mm y 4mm), divididos en 8 grupos (n=17); G1 SonicFill™ (4x2mm), G2 SonicFill™ (4x4mm), G3 Tetric® N-Ceram Bulk Fill (4x2mm), G4 Tetric® N-Ceram Bulk Fill (4x4mm), G5 Filtek™ Z250 XT (4X2mm), G6 Filtek™ Z250 XT (4x4mm), G7 Te-Econom Plus® (4x2mm) y G8 Te-Econom Plus® (4x4mm). La resistencia compresiva fue evaluada con la máquina Instron® a una velocidad de desplazamiento fijo de 1.0mm/min. Los test de ANOVA, Kruskall Wallis, t Student y U de Mann Whitney fueron empleados para el análisis estadístico. Resultados: Para las resinas Bulk Fill, Tetric® N-Ceram Bulk Fill (310.06-4x2mm, 303.87-4x4mm) mostró mayor resistencia compresiva que SonicFill™. Para las resinas convencionales, Filtek™ Z250 XT (295.9-4x2mm, 289.7-4x4mm) obtuvo mayor resistencia compresiva que Te-Econom Plus®. A la comparación de todos los grupos, Tetric® N-Ceram Bulk Fill presentó los valores compresivos más altos en ambos espesores 4x2mm(0.122) y 4x4mm(0.333), con diferencias estadísticas significativas (p<0.001*-4x2mm, p=0.004-4x4mm). Conclusión: Tetric® N-Ceram Bulk Fill puede ser una buena alternativa para restauraciones posteriores, ya que su propiedad mecánica de resistencia compresiva es superior en relación a las otras evaluadas.
Objective: The aim of this study was compare the compressive strength of 2 Bulk fill resin composites and 2 conventional resin composites. Materials and methods: one hundred and thirty six cylindrical samples (2mm and 4mm), divided in 8 groups (n = 17); G1 SonicFill™ (4x2mm), G2 SonicFill™ (4x4mm), G3 Tetric® N-Ceram Bulk Fill (4x2mm), G4 Tetric® N-Ceram Bulk Fill (4x4mm), G5 Filtek™ Z250 XT (4x2mm), G6 Filtek™ Z250 XT (4x4mm), G7 Te-Econom Plus® (4x2mm) and G8 Te-Econom Plus® (4x4mm). Specimens were evaluated to compressive stress test using Instron® machine at crosshead speed of 1.0 mm/min. One way Anova, Kruskall Wallis, Student's t and U Mann Whitney tests were employed for statistical analyses. Results: For Bulk resin composites, Tetric® N-Ceram Bulk Fill (310.06-4x2mm, 303.87-4x4mm) showed higher compressive strength than SonicFill™. For conventional resin composites, Filtek™ Z250 XT (295.9-4x2mm, 289.7-4x4mm) showed higher compressive strength than Te-Econom Plus®. For comparison,Tetric® N-Ceram Bulk Fill was higher compressive strength in both thickness 4x2mm (p=0.122) and 4x4mm (p=0.333) and it was statistically significant (<0.001*-4x2mm, 0.004-4x4mm) among them. Conclusion: Tetric® N-Ceram Bulk Fill offers a good mechanical property like a compressive strength which is better in comparison to the others resin composites evaluated in this study.
Type
info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis
Rights
info:eu-repo/semantics/embargoedAccess
Language
spa
Collections
Odontologia

entitlement

 

DSpace software (copyright © 2002 - 2021)  DuraSpace
Quick Guide | Contact Us
Alicia
La Referencia
Open Repository is a service operated by 
Atmire NV
 

Export search results

The export option will allow you to export the current search results of the entered query to a file. Different formats are available for download. To export the items, click on the button corresponding with the preferred download format.

By default, clicking on the export buttons will result in a download of the allowed maximum amount of items.

To select a subset of the search results, click "Selective Export" button and make a selection of the items you want to export. The amount of items that can be exported at once is similarly restricted as the full export.

After making a selection, click one of the export format buttons. The amount of items that will be exported is indicated in the bubble next to export format.