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

Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the compressive strength, flexural strength and flexural modulus of high-viscosity, low-viscosity bulk-fill, and conventional nano-hybrid resin composite materials alone and when covered with nano-hybrid resin composite at different incremental thicknesses on the bulk-fill composites. Materials and Methods: Specimens (N=60) were fabricated from the following materials or their combinations (n=10 per group): a) conventional nano-hybrid composite Z550 (FK), b) high-viscosity bulk-fill composite (Tetric N Ceram-TBF), c) low-viscosity bulk-fill composite SDR (SDR), d) Sonicfill (SF), e) SDR (2 mm)+FK (2 mm), f) SDR (4 mm)+FK (4 mm). After 24 h water storage, compressive strength was measured in a universal testing machine (1 mm/min). Additional specimens (N=40) (25x2x2 mm 3 ) were made from FK, TBF, SDR and SF in order to determine the flexural strength and the flexural modulus, (n=10) and subjected to three-point bending test (0.5 mm/min). Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tamhane’s T2 post-hoc tests (p<0.05). Results: The mean compressive strength (MPa) of the nano-hybrid composite (FK) was significantly higher (223.8±41.3) than those of the other groups (123±27 - 170±24) (p<0.001). SDR (4 mm)+FK (2 mm) showed significantly higher compressive strength than when covered with 4 mm (143±30) or when used alone (146±11) (p<0.05). The mean flexural strength (159±31) and the flexural modulus of FK (34±7) was significantly higher than that of the high- or low-viscosity bulk-fill composites (p<0.001). The mean flexural strength of SF (132±20) was significantly higher compared to TBF (95±25) (p<0.05). Conclusion: Bulk-fill resin composites demonstrated poorer mechanical properties compared to nano-hybrid composite but similar to that of SF. Increasing the thickness of low-viscosity bulk-fill composite (SDR) from 2 to 4 mm underneath the nano-hybrid composite (FK) can improve the mechanical properties of the bulk-fill composites. Keywords Bulk-fill composites; Compressive strength; Flexural modulus; Flexural strength; Mechanical properties.

Mechanical properties of bulk-fill versus nanohybrid composites: effect of layer thickness and application protocols