English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This study evaluated the influence of pre-cure energy density, and additional postcure treatments in optimizing the physical properties (Flexural strength and Knoop microhardness) of direct resin composites with the aim at allowing their use for indirect restorations. Direct resin composites evaluated were Fillmagic, Concept, Glacier, Z100, Masterfill and W3D Master; indirect composites were Solidex and Belleglass HP. Sixty bar-shaped specimens (10x2x2mm) were prepared for each material, so that 30 of them were light-cured by one surface and 30 on both surfaces. From the 30 specimens of each group, 10 were control, 10 were submitted to additional autoclave and 10 to light oven treatment. Ten specimens were prepared with each indirect composite following the manufactures’ recommendations. The 380 specimens were submitted to flexural strength test (Kratos universal testing machine), and values obtained at fracture were reported. After that, 10 fragments were chosen for each experimental condition and assessed for Knoop microhardness (Shimadzu HMV-2). Data were submitted to analysis of variance and Tukey’s test at p<0.05. Statistically significant differences were found among flexural strength results regarding composite materials (p<0.001), treatments (p<0.001) and interactions (composite x treatment, p<0.001). Regarding Knoop microhardness, both three factors and their interactions were also significant: composite (p<0.001), surface (p<0.001) and treatment (p<0.017), composite x surface (p<0.001), composite treatment (p<0.001), surface x treatment (p<0.001) and composite x surface x treatment (p<0.024). The highest mean value for each direct composite, regardless of the experimental condition, was compared to the mean values obtained for the indirect materials. With regard to flexural strength, comparisons point out that Z100 = W3D = Fillmagic = Glacier and Z100 > Masterfill > Belleglass HP > Concept > Solidex, whereas for Knoop microhardness Z100 > Belleglass HP, Fillmagic, W3D, Concept, Glacier, Masterfill and Solidex. Conclusion: considering the physical properties evaluated in this study, they are not an obstacle to the indication of direct composites for indirect restorations.

"Diferentes métodos de otimização da polimerização de resinas compostas de uso direto"