Bibliographic Details
| Title: |
DUREZA SUPERFICIAL Y RESISTENCIA A LA COMPRESIÓN DE MATERIALES DE RESTAURACIÓN PARA DIENTES POSTERIORES. |
| Alternate Title: |
Surface hardness and compression resistance of restoration materials for posterior teeth. |
| Authors: |
Yanac Acedo, Lourdes Magdalena1 lyanacacedo@gmail.com, Ríos Caro, Teresa Etelvina2 |
| Source: |
Odontología Pediátrica. jul-dic2024, Vol. 23 Issue 2, p6-13. 8p. |
| Subjects: |
COMPRESSIVE strength, VICKERS hardness, DENTAL resins, HARDNESS, DENTAL materials |
| Abstract (English): |
Objective: To compare the in vitro surface hardness and compressive strength of three direct restorative materials for posterior teeth. Methodology: This is a cross-sectional comparative experimental in vitro study. The sample consisted of 60 cylinders divided into three groups of 20 samples: Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill resin, Alkasite Cention-N, and Giomer Beautifil II, which were prepared using a Teflon matrix that served as a mold to prepare cylinders with the restorative materials according to ISO 4049 standards. Surface hardness was measured using the Vickers hardness tester, while compressive strength was determined with the Universal Testing Machine, measured in Megapascals. Results: The obtained values for surface hardness showed that Beautifil II had the highest average with 66.36 Vickers, while Cention-N obtained 48.54 Vickers, and Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill 48.22 Vickers. Regarding compressive strength, the highest average was for Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill with 217.35 Megapascals, followed by Beautifil II with 195.83 Megapascals, and Cention-N with 187.55 Megapascals. Conclusion: Giomer Beautifil II presented the highest surface hardness, while Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill resin achieved the highest compressive strength. Conversely, Alkasite Cention-N obtained the lowest values for both mechanical properties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Abstract (Portuguese): |
Objetivo: Comparar in vitro la dureza superficial y resistencia a la compresión de 3 materiales de restauración para dientes posteriores. Materiales y Método: Estudio experimental in vitro, de corte transversal comparativo. La muestra estuvo conformada por 60 cilindros, divididos en tres grupos de 20 muestras: Resina Tetric N- Ceram Bulk Fill, Alkasite Cention-N y Giomero Beautifil II, las cuales se confeccionaron utilizando una matriz de teflón, que sirvió de molde para preparar cilindros con los materiales de restauración según norma ISO 4049. Para medir la dureza superficial se usó la máquina Durómetro medido en Vickers, mientras que la resistencia a la compresión se determinó con la máquina Digital de Ensayos Universales medido en Megapascal. Resultados: Los valores obtenidos para dureza superficial fueron que Beautifil II obtuvo el mayor promedio con 66.36 vickers, mientras que el Cention-N obtuvo 48.54 vickers y Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill 48.22 vickers. Con respecto a la resistencia a la compresión el mayor promedio fue para Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill con 217.35 megapascales, seguido por el Beautifil II que obtuvo 195.83 megapascales y Cention-N con 187.55 megapascales. Conclusiones: El Giomero Beautifil II presentó mayor dureza superficial, mientras que la resina Tetric N-Ceram BulkFill alcanzó mayor resistencia a la compresión, por el contrario el Alkasite Cention-N obtuvo los menores valores para ambas propiedades mecánicas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|
Copyright of Odontología Pediátrica is the property of Asociacion Sociedad Peruana de Odontopediatria and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| Database: |
MedicLatina |
