Ludovichetti Francesco Saverio, Lucchi Patrizia, Zambon Giulia, Pezzato Luca, Bertolini Rachele, Zerman Nicoletta, Stellini Edoardo, Mazzoleni Sergio
Department of Neurosciences-Dentistry Section, Università degli Studi di Padova, 35121 Padova, Italy.
Department of Industrial Engineering, Università degli Studi di Padova, 35121 Padova, Italy.
Nanomaterials (Basel). 2022 Jun 7;12(12):1951. doi: 10.3390/nano12121951.
(1) Objective: To evaluate and compare the depth of cure (DOC) of two bulk-fill flowable composites (Filtek Bulk Fill Flowable Restorative and Tetric EvoFlow Bulk Fill), two conventional flowable composites (Filtek Supreme XTE Flowable Restorative and G-ænial Flo X) and one high-strength universal injectable composite (G-ænial Universal Injectable). (2) Methods: specimens were placed in a stainless-steel mold with an orifice of 4 mm in diameter and 10 mm in depth and light-cured for 20 s using a light emitting diode (LED) light-curing unit (LCU) with an irradiance of 1000 mW/cm2; depth of cure was assessed using the ISO 4049 scrape technique, and the absolute length of the specimen of cured composite was measured in millimeters with a digital caliper. The same procedure was repeated with 14 samples for each material under investigation, for a total number of 70 test bodies. Material roughness and hardness results were also investigated using, respectively, a 3D laser confocal microscope (LEXT OLS 4100; Olympus) at ×5 magnification and a Vickers diamond indenter (Vickers microhardness tester, Shimadzu®, Kyoto, Japan) under 10-N load and a 30 s dwell time. SEM images at 3000 and 9000 magnification were collected in order to study the materials’ filler content. Statistical analysis were performed by a commercial statistical software package (SPSS) and data were analyzed using multiple comparison Dunnett’s test. (3) Results: The average DOC of both bulk-fill composites was more than 4 mm, as a range of 3.91 and 4.53 mm with an average value of 4.24 and 4.12 mm, while that of the conventional flowable composites was much lower, as a range of 2.47 and 2.90 mm with an average value of 2.58 and 2.84 mm; DOC of the high-strength injectable composite was greater than the one of traditional composites, but not to the level of bulk-fill materials, as a range of 2.82 and 3.01 mm with an average value of 3.02 mm. Statistical analysis revealed significant differences (p-values < 0.05) in the depth of cure between bulk fill flowable composites and other composites, while there was no difference (p-values > 0.05) between the materials of the same type. (4) Conclusions: Bulk-fill flowable composites showed significantly higher depth of cure values than both traditional flowable composites and high-strength injectable composites.
(1) 目的:评估并比较两种大块充填可流动复合树脂(Filtek Bulk Fill Flowable Restorative和Tetric EvoFlow Bulk Fill)、两种传统可流动复合树脂(Filtek Supreme XTE Flowable Restorative和G-ænial Flo X)以及一种高强度通用注射用复合树脂(G-ænial Universal Injectable)的固化深度(DOC)。(2) 方法:将试样置于直径4 mm、深度10 mm的不锈钢模具中,使用辐照度为1000 mW/cm²的发光二极管(LED)光固化机(LCU)光固化20 s;采用ISO 4049刮擦技术评估固化深度,并用数字卡尺以毫米为单位测量固化复合树脂试样的绝对长度。对每种受试材料的14个样本重复相同步骤,共计70个测试体。还分别使用放大倍数为×5的3D激光共聚焦显微镜(LEXT OLS 4100;奥林巴斯)和在10 N载荷及30 s保压时间条件下的维氏金刚石压头(维氏显微硬度测试仪,岛津®,日本京都)研究材料的粗糙度和硬度结果。采集放大倍数为3000和9000的扫描电子显微镜(SEM)图像以研究材料的填料含量。采用商用统计软件包(SPSS)进行统计分析,并用多重比较Dunnett检验分析数据。(3) 结果:两种大块充填复合树脂的平均固化深度均超过4 mm,范围为3.91至4.53 mm,平均值分别为4.24和4.12 mm,而传统可流动复合树脂的平均固化深度则低得多,范围为2.47至2.90 mm,平均值分别为2.58和2.84 mm;高强度注射用复合树脂的固化深度大于传统复合树脂,但未达到大块充填材料的水平,范围为2.82至3.01 mm,平均值为3.02 mm。统计分析显示,大块充填可流动复合树脂与其他复合树脂之间在固化深度上存在显著差异(p值<0.05),而同类材料之间无差异(p值>0.05)。(4) 结论:大块充填可流动复合树脂的固化深度值显著高于传统可流动复合树脂和高强度注射用复合树脂。