Comparación de la resistencia compresiva de resinas convencionales vs resinas tipo bulk fill
Average rating
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
Thank you for your feedback
Issue Date
22/02/2017
Metadata
Show full item recordCitation
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/10757/621017Abstract
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/bachelorThesisRights
info:eu-repo/semantics/embargoedAccessLanguage
spaCollections