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

The present study evaluated the flexural strength of three composite resins recommended for direct esthetic restorations: a polyacid modified composite (Dyract AP), a unimodal composite resin (Filtek Z250) and a hybrid composite resin (Point 4). The variation factors, apart from the type of composite resin, were the light activation method and the water storage period. The composite resins were light-cured in continuous mode (40 s, 500 mW/cm2) or in ramp mode (0-800 mW/cm2 for 10 s followed by 30 s at 800 mW/cm2) and stored for 24 hours or 30 days in distilled water at 37 degrees C. The data were analyzed by ANOVA and Tukey test for multiple comparisons (alpha = 0.05). The composite resin Z250 presented the highest mean flexural strength (166.74 MPa) and Dyract AP presented the lowest one (129.76 MPa). The storage for 30 days decreased the flexural strength in ramp mode (24 h: 156.64 MPa; 30 days: 135.58 MPa). The light activation method alone did not lead to different flexural strength values.

Effect of light-activation methods and water storage on the flexural strength of two composite resins and a compomer