MICROLEAKAGE AND MICROSHEAR BOND STRENGTH OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF DENTAL COMPOSITE RESTORATIVE MATERIALS
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The present study was conducted to evaluate the microleakage and microshear bond strength of different types of dental composite. For microleakage test, 45 caries-free human permanent maxillary molars with no crack, decay, or structural deformities were collected. A standard Class V cavity was prepared on the buccal surface of each tooth. The cavity of each tooth was acid etched and the adhesive material was applied to the etched surface, gently dried and cured. The prepared teeth were divided randomly into three groups, (15 for each group) according to the types of composite. Group A: Tetric EvoCeram nanohybrid composite (Ivoclar vivadent Inc. USA and Canada), Group B: Tetric EvoCeram Bulk fill composite (Ivoclar vivadent Inc. USA and Canada) and Group C: Sonic Fill Bulk fill composite (Kerr Restoratives, USA). The specimens in each group were restored with the corresponding composite and cured according to manufacturer’s instructions. The specimens were submitted to thermo-cycling, covered with nail varnish, followed by immersion in dye solution. Each tooth was sectioned longitudinally using hard tissue microtome. The microleakage was measured using digital microscope at ×10 magnification. The dye penetration in the specimens was evaluated for both the occlusal and gingival surfaces based on a scoring system. Kruskal-Wallis test was used to determine the difference between microleakage scores in the three study groups at a 0.05 level of significance. For microshear bond strength test 30 caries-free human permanent mandibular molars with no crack, decay, or structural deformities were collected. The occlusal surface of the teeth were ground perpendicular to the long axis of each tooth to expose a flat dentin surface. A dentine slice with thickness 2 mm was sectioned perpendicular to the long axis of each tooth. The surfaces of dentin slides were acid etched and the adhesive material was applied to the etched surface, gently dried and cured. The specimens were divided into three main groups (10 for each group) according to the type of composite resins used as in microleakage test. Composite resins was placed, cured and the specimens were submitted to thermocycling before testing. The recorded values of bond strengths in (MPa) were collected, tabulated and statistically analyzed. One way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s tests were used for testing the significance between the means of tested groups. The results showed that Tetric EvoCeram nanohybrid composite had the highest scores of microleakage followed by Tetric EvoCeram Bulk fill and Sonic Fill Bulk fill which showed the lowest scores. The results also showed that Sonic Fill Bulk fill composite had the highest microshear bond strength value followed by Tetric EvoCeram Bulk fill and Tetric EvoCeram nanohybrid composite which showed the lowest value.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».