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

      Cafferata Montoya, Paola; Casas Apayco, Leslie; Falcón Cabrera, Giancarlo; Acurio Benavente, Paloma (Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas (UPC), 22/02/2017)
      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.
      Acceso restringido temporalmente