Title: 1879 - Fatiguing and Preheating Effect on Mechanical Properties of Composite Resins
Awab Abdulmajeed (Presenter)
University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill
Terence Donovan, University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill
Ryan Cook, University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill
Taiseer Sulaiman, University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill
Objectives: To evaluate the effect of fatiguing and preheating on the mechanical properties of a bulk-fill composite resin and its conventional counterpart.
Methods: Hundred and eighty specimen of Filtek One Bulk Fill Restorative (FOBR, 3M ESPE) and Filtek Supreme Ultra (FSU, 3M ESPE) were prepared for each of the following tests: Fracture Toughness (ISO 23146), Diametral Tensile Strength (No. 27 of ANSI/ADA), Flexural Strength and Elastic Modulus (ISO standard 4049). Specimens in the preheated group were heated to 68 C for 10 minutes, and in the fatiguing group were cyclically loaded and thermocycled for 600000 cycles and then tested. Statistical analysis was performed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s multiple comparison tests for pairwise comparisons.
Results: Means and standard deviations can be found in tables 1-3. Preheating and fatiguing had a significant effect on the properties of both FSU and FOBR. Fracture toughness was increased for FOBR when specimens preheated and decreased when fatigued, FSU was not affected. Diametral tensile strength was decreased significantly after fatiguing for the FSU. FOBR had lower tensile strength for all groups when compared to FSU. Fatiguing significantly reduced flexural strength of both FSU and FOBR with latter significantly different than FSU. Preheating had no effect on the flexural strength of both. Preheating and fatiguing significantly decreased the elastic modulus of both composite resins equally.
Conclusions: Conventional and bulk fill composite resins have minimal difference in their mechanical properties. Preheating does not yield negative effect on the mechanical properties. In-vitro fatiguing yields useful information by emulating the intraoral challenge and predicting the effect of that on properties of composite resins.
|Filtek Supreme Ultra||1.53 ± 0.21||1.57 ± 0.13||1.57 ± 0.11|
|Filtek One Bulk Fill Restorative||1.78 ± 0.13 #||1.94 ± 0.16 * #||1.66 ± 0.07 * #|
|Filtek Supreme Ultra||62.05 ± 5.06 #||64.90 ± 7.74||51.54 ± 7.80 *|
|Filtek One Bulk Fill Restorative||55.74 ± 3.34||59.69 ± 6.70||57.52 ± 5.08|
|Filtek Supreme Ultra||150.74 ± 11.52
15.17 ± 0.73
|144.33 ± 7.00
13.74 ± 1.35 *
|137.78 ± 7.27 * #
14.95 ± 0.60 *
|Filtek One Bulk Fill Restorative||149.40 ± 13.66
16.46 ± 1.43
|161.42 ± 4.40 #
14.15 ± 2.03 *
|125.62 ± 16.28 *
15.02 ± 1.05 *
The submitter must disclose the names of the organizations with which any author have a relationship, the nature of the relationship, and the clinical or research area involved. The following is submitted: None