PMID- 21566866
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DCOM- 20150623
LR  - 20181201
IS  - 1006-7248 (Print)
IS  - 1006-7248 (Linking)
VI  - 20
IP  - 2
DP  - 2011 Apr
TI  - [Evaluation of mechanical properties of four kinds of composite resins for 
      inlay].
PG  - 164-8
AB  - PURPOSE: To evaluate the compressive strength, wear resistance, hardness, and 
      soaking fatigue of four composite resins for inlay, which were Ceramage, Surefil, 
      Solitaire 2, and Filtek(TM) Z350. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) was used to 
      analyze the microstructures of the wear surface of the samples. METHODS: The 
      samples for the compression test, hardness test and wear were prepared. The 
      samples were respectively immersed in the artificial saliva for 2 months for 
      immersed test. The electronic universal testing machine was used to test the 
      compression strength. Hardness was quantified by micro-Vickers hardness test. The 
      wear tester was used for the wear test. SEM was used to analyze the 
      microstructures of the wear surface of samples. All the data was analyzed by 
      using SPSS17.0 software package. RESULTS: The compressive strength of Surefil was 
      the biggest which was significantly higher than the other three resins before 
      soaking (P<0.05). After soaking, there was no significant difference between the 
      composite resins (P>0.05). The hardness of Surefil was the best, and significant 
      difference was found between the hardness of the materials before soaking 
      (P<0.05). After soaking, no significant difference was obtained between the 
      hardness of Surefil and Filtek(TM) Z350 (P>0.05).The compressive strength and 
      hardness of 4 materials decreased after soaking in artificial saliva. But only 
      the compressive strength of Filtek(TM) Z350 had no significant change after 
      immersion (P>0.05). Except Filtek(TM) Z350, there was significant difference 
      between the other three materials (P<0.05). Significant relationship was observed 
      between wear and hardness of three materials (P<0.05). According to SEM 
      observation, abrasive wear occurred in four materials. In addition to Ceramage, 
      other composite resins had adhesive wear. CONCLUSIONS: The mechanical property of 
      Surefil is the best, and it is suitable for fabrication of posterior inlay. 
      Filtek(TM) Z350's ability to resist fatigue is the best.
FAU - Jiang, Ling-ling
AU  - Jiang LL
AD  - Department of Comprehensive Dentistry, College of Stomatology, Jilin University. 
      Changchun 130021, Jilin Province, China. free12ling@163.com
FAU - Liu, Hong
AU  - Liu H
FAU - Wang, Jin-rui
AU  - Wang JR
LA  - chi
PT  - Journal Article
PL  - China
TA  - Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue
JT  - Shanghai kou qiang yi xue = Shanghai journal of stomatology
JID - 101090220
RN  - 0 (Composite Resins)
RN  - 0 (Silicates)
RN  - 0 (ceramage)
SB  - IM
MH  - Composite Resins
MH  - Compressive Strength
MH  - *Dental Restoration Wear
MH  - Hardness
MH  - Humans
MH  - *Inlays
MH  - Materials Testing
MH  - Silicates
EDAT- 2011/05/14 06:00
MHDA- 2015/06/24 06:00
CRDT- 2011/05/14 06:00
PHST- 2011/05/14 06:00 [entrez]
PHST- 2011/05/14 06:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2015/06/24 06:00 [medline]
PST - ppublish
SO  - Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue. 2011 Apr;20(2):164-8.