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/

Zendy Plus

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

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

The objective of this study was to compare the physical and optical stability of resin composite materials with different filler characteristics. Ninety-six resin composite blocks (6 mm × 6 mm × 2 mm) were prepared using four different types of resin composite, divided into four groups. Specimens from the same material were randomly divided into four groups ( n = 6) and allocated for Vickers hardness (VH), water sorption, solubility (WS/SL), and staining and aging challenges tests. One-way ANOVA showed significant differences in microhardness ( p = 0.0001), WS ( p = 0.0001), and SL ( p = 0.003) among the tested groups. Beautifil II LS recorded the highest hardness, and CharmFil ® Flow had the lowest value. Beautifil Injectable X and II LS showed negative WS, whereas the other groups had positive values. All groups showed positive SL. Repeated measures ANOVA showed significant color parameter alteration in the tested groups ( p = 0.0001). All groups showed significant color shifting after one week of the staining challenge. Repeated measures ANOVA showed a significant color parameter ( p = 0.0001) and weight ( p = 0.001) alteration after the aging challenge. The optical and physical stability of resin composites may vary according to filler characteristics. Clinicians should choose the composite as per the desired outcome.

In Vitro Optical and Physical Stability of Resin Composite Materials with Different Filler Characteristics