TY - JOUR
T1 - Food simulating organic solvents for evaluating crosslink density of bulk fill composite resin
AU - Ayad, Neveen M.
AU - Bahgat, Hala A.
AU - Al Kaba, Eman Hussain
AU - Buholayka, Maryam Hussain
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 Neveen M. Ayad et al.
PY - 2017
Y1 - 2017
N2 - Objectives. To evaluate crosslink densities of two bulk fill composite resins and determine if the used Food Simulating Organic Solvent (FSOS) affected them. Methods. Forty specimens were prepared from SureFill and SonicFill bulk fill composite resins, 20 each. All specimens were stored dry for 24 h. Each group was divided into 2 subgroups: stored in ethanol (E) 75% or in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) 100% for 24 h. Crosslink density was evaluated by calculating the difference between the Vickers hardness numbers of the specimens stored dry and after their storage in FSOS. The data were statistically analyzed using t-test. Results. The means of crosslink density in E and MEK were 6.99% and 9.44% for SureFill and 10.54% and 11.92% for SonicFill, respectively. t-test displayed significant differences between crosslink densities of SureFill and SonicFill: (P<0.0001) in E and (P=0.02) in MEK and between crosslink densities of SureFill in E and MEK (P=0.02). Conclusions. Crosslink density of bulk fill composite resin can be evaluated using E or MEK. SureFill has higher crosslink density than SonicFill in both E and MEK.
AB - Objectives. To evaluate crosslink densities of two bulk fill composite resins and determine if the used Food Simulating Organic Solvent (FSOS) affected them. Methods. Forty specimens were prepared from SureFill and SonicFill bulk fill composite resins, 20 each. All specimens were stored dry for 24 h. Each group was divided into 2 subgroups: stored in ethanol (E) 75% or in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) 100% for 24 h. Crosslink density was evaluated by calculating the difference between the Vickers hardness numbers of the specimens stored dry and after their storage in FSOS. The data were statistically analyzed using t-test. Results. The means of crosslink density in E and MEK were 6.99% and 9.44% for SureFill and 10.54% and 11.92% for SonicFill, respectively. t-test displayed significant differences between crosslink densities of SureFill and SonicFill: (P<0.0001) in E and (P=0.02) in MEK and between crosslink densities of SureFill in E and MEK (P=0.02). Conclusions. Crosslink density of bulk fill composite resin can be evaluated using E or MEK. SureFill has higher crosslink density than SonicFill in both E and MEK.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85018837375
U2 - 10.1155/2017/1797091
DO - 10.1155/2017/1797091
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85018837375
SN - 1687-8728
VL - 2017
JO - International Journal of Dentistry
JF - International Journal of Dentistry
M1 - 1797091
ER -