Regarding the sealing ability of restorative dental materials, this
study was done to assess the microleakage of class V cavities
restored with a new self-adhesive flowable composite resin and
compare to different flowable materials.
The aim of the study is to evaluate the surface roughness of the resin Tetric N Ceram (Ivoclarvivadent ) after different finishing and polishing techniques. 50 specimens of (10×2) mm were made and distributed in 5 groups (N=10), According to the tech
nique employed: First group G1: Tengustinecarbid burs, Second group G2: Astopol system, Third group G3: Stem discs, Fourth group G4: Tengustinecarbid burs then Astropol system, Fifth group G5: Tengustinecarbid burs then Stem discs. A coarse roughness diamond bur was applied , then applied a super fine diamond bur on all specimens of the study before starting any procedure of finishing and polishing. After finishing and polishing techniques, surface roughness )Ra μm( was measured using InfiniteFocus– Alicona. Data were subjected to Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U test at 5% significance level.
Objective:This study evaluated the fluoride release of four dental restorative
materials for a period of 28 days.
Materials And Methods:A total of 10 specimens (4 * 2 * 2)mm3 for each of the four
materials were prepared following manufacturer’s in
structions and immersed
independently in 2 ml of distilled water which was changed every period for all the
specimens.
Results:The results demonstrated that the glass ionomer cements (Fuji IX GP and
VivaglassCem) release high fluoride compared with the compomer and composite resin,
but rapidly decreased after the third day and continued this releasing for a period of 28
days , also showed low fluoride release of composite resin and lacking entirely with the
passage of time.
Conclusions:The fluoride released by the glass ionomer cements (GICs) was found
to be highest during the first 24 h and decreased significantly over the 1st week with lower
levels obtained on the 28th day, thus demonstrating the phenomenon of “initial burst”.
The composite resin and compomer used in this study did not show this “initial
burst”.
The research project sample consisted of 30 blocks of composite resin , these blocks where divided into three equal groups , 10 of composite resin Z-250 from 3M ESPE Company , 10 of the composite resin Supreme from 3M ESPE Company ,10 of the composit
e resin Quixfil of Dentsply company, and has been testing the hardness Number, each sample individually. The aim of the previous procedures was to show the role of composite resin structure in determining the hardness number Through differences in the hardness number and the role of this hardness determining the mechanical properties for composite resin restorations cause of the importance of this property to understand the mechanical properties for a lot of restorative materials. And the result is that there is a statistically significant between the resin Quixfil and the Z-250 on the one hand and the Supreme resin on the other hand.
