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 Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the two-body wear resistance of human enamel, a pressable glass-ceramic (Imagine PressX), a type 3 gold alloy (Aurocast8), three resins composites currently available on the market (Enamel plus HRi, Filtek Supreme XTE, Ceram.X duo), and one recently introduced resin composite (Enamel plus HRi-Function). Resin composites were tested after simple light curing and after a further heat polymerization cycle. Ten cylindrical specimens (7 mm in diameter) were manufactured with each dental material according to standard laboratory procedures. Ten flat enamel specimens were obtained from freshly extracted human molars and included in the control group. All samples were subjected to a two-body wear test in a dual-axis chewing simulator over up to 120,000 loading cycles, against yttria stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystal cusps. Wear resistance was analyzed by measuring the vertical substance loss (mm) and the volume loss (mm(3)). Antagonist wear (mm) was also recorded. Data were statistically analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) (wear depth and volume loss) and Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA on ranks (antagonist wear). Heat-cured HRi function and Aurocast8 showed similar mean values for wear depth and volumetric loss, and their results did not statistically differ in comparison with the human enamel.

Wear Properties of a Novel Resin Composite Compared to Human Enamel and Other Restorative Materials